*1 IMMERGUT, District Judge.
On January 19, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 14, recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, ECF 8, be GRANTED. No party filed objections. This Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo’s F&R.
PAGE 1 – ORDER ADOPTING F&R
Case 3:23-cv-01012-JR Document 16 Filed 02/05/24 Page 2 of 2
STANDARDS
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, 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)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R that are not objected to. See Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia , 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte ” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas , 474 U.S. at 154.
CONCLUSION
No party having filed objections, this Court has reviewed the F&R, ECF 14, and accepts Judge Russo’s conclusions. Judge Russo’s F&R, ECF 14, is adopted in full. Accordingly, this Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, ECF 8, and DISMISSES this case without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED .
DATED this 5th day of February, 2024.
/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge PAGE 2 – ORDER ADOPTING F&R