Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01725/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01725-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

18-cv-1725-WQH-WVG

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

ANTHONY NAVARRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

GASLAMP TAVERN LLC d/b/a 

GASLAMP TAVERN, BAHYAG 

INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-1725-WQH-WVG

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued 

by United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo (ECF No. 36), pursuant to Plaintiff 

and Defendant Gaslamp Tavern LLC d/b/a Gaslamp Tavern’s Joint Motion of Dismissal

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) (EFC No. 27), recommending that 

the Parties’ request that the above-captioned action be dismissed with prejudice as to all 

parties be granted.

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). The district judge 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 

Case 3:18-cv-01725-WQH-WVG Document 37 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-1725-WQH-WVG

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

district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 

which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 

(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 

correct.”).

No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 

reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the Parties. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 36) is 

adopted in its entirety. The Joint Motion of Dismissal (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED. This 

action is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all parties, including Does 1 through 10. Each 

Party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Dated: September 4, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01725-WQH-WVG Document 37 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2