Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01951/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01951-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

NATHAN WENBERG, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

P. DELVILLAR, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 13-1951 SBA

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court previously referred Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 

to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas (“the Magistrate”). On January 22, 2016, the Magistrate 

issued his report and recommendation in which he recommended granting the motion. 

Dkt. 81. As noted in the report and recommendation, any objections to a report and 

recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Civ. L.R. 72-2, 72-3. The district court must “make a de 

novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made,” and “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); see also Civ. L.R. 72-3(a) (requiring that any 

objections be accompanied by a motion for de novo determination). 

The deadline to file an objection to the report and recommendation was February 5, 

2016. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1), 72(b). To date, no objections have been filed in this 

case. In the absence of a timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is 

no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72, advisory committee notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 

196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district 

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 82 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if [an] 

objection is made, but not otherwise.”). The Court has reviewed the record on its face and 

finds no clear error. Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation (Docket 81) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. 

Plaintiff is ordered to sign the settlement agreement and release, the stipulation of voluntary 

dismissal, and to complete the payee data form, in order to effectuate the settlement. This 

Order terminates Docket 75, 76 and 81. Pursuant to the settlement, this action and all 

claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with prejudice. In the event that the settlement is 

not finalized, any party may move to reopen the case and the trial will be rescheduled, 

provided that such motion is filed within 180 days of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 2/16/16 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

Senior United States District Judge 

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 82 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 2