*2 HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings and Recommendation [69] on April 10, 2017, in
which she recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees [66]. The
matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were
timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo . United States v.
Reyna-Tapia , 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v.
Bernhardt , 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) ( de novo review required only for portions of
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal
principles de novo , the Court finds no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge You’s Findings & Recommendation [69], and
therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees [66] is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ___________________ day of _________________________, 2017.
________________________________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge 2 – ORDER