Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02661/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02661-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLEN OAK LUMBER & MILLING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv2661 LAB (JLB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (DOCKET NO. 41

& 42) DETERMINING CLAIMS OF

EXEMPTION BY JOSE A. PINEDA

AND FRANCISCO NIETO

vs.

JOSE A. PINEDA AND FRANCISCO

NIETO,

Defendants.

Jose A. Pineda and Francisco Nieto filed Claims of Exemption after Plaintiff Glen Oak

Lumber & Milling obtained a judgment against them. Glen Oak opposed the Claims of

Exemption, arguing that Pineda and Nieto made material misstatements and omissions on

their Financial Statement. Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a report and

recommendations (“R & R”), recommending the court deny the Claims of Exemption.

Objections to the R & R were due on December 22, 2015. No objections were filed.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly

objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This

- 1 - 15CV2661

Case 3:15-cv-02661-LAB-JLB Document 43 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the district

judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection

is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003).The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R & R’s and agrees with its rationale and

conclusions.

The Court ADOPTS Judge Burkhardt’s R & R’s. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 10, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15CV2661

Case 3:15-cv-02661-LAB-JLB Document 43 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 2