Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00687/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00687-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

- 1 - 05cv0687w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MCDONALD, on behalf of

himself and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05-CV-0687 W (CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION RE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 

 v.

BONDED COLLECTORS, L.L.C.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff filed this consumer credit lawsuit on April 4, 2005 alleging that

Defendant engaged in abusive debt-collection practices. On August 30, 2005, Plaintiff

filed a First Amended Complaint adding allegations on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who

received the same form letter. Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend the complaint to add

a new defendant. 

On September 18, 2006, United States Magistrate Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued

a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the Court grant

Plaintiff’s motion to amend. Objections to the Report were due by no later than

Case 3:05-cv-00687-PCL Document 39 Filed 10/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 - 05cv0687w

October 2, 2006. Defendant did not file an objection, nor did it request additional time

in which to do so. 

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are

filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003)(holding that 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c) “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”)(emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1226 (D. Arizona 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed the District

Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s Report). This rule of law is

well established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416

F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005)(“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only

required when an objection is made to the R & R)(emphasis added)(citing Renya-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz,

J.) (adopted Report without review because neither party filed objections to the Report

despite the opportunity to do so, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155,

1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

Because Defendant has tendered no objections to the Report nor requested an

extension of time in which to do so, the Court accepts Judge Bencivengo’s

recommendation that Plaintiff’s motion to amend be granted and ADOPTS the Report

in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by

reference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend. Plaintiff is given 5 days

from the date of this order to file and serve the Second Amended Complaint. 

/././

Case 3:05-cv-00687-PCL Document 39 Filed 10/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 05cv0687w

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 13, 2006

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00687-PCL Document 39 Filed 10/13/06 Page 3 of 3