Brown et al v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing, LLC et al

1
3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL
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
SAINT BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CAMP PENDLETON & QUANTICO
HOUSING LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; and
(2) APPROVING PETITION FOR
MINOR’S COMPROMISE AND
FINDING THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT FAIR AND
REASONABLE
[ECF Nos. 99, 102]
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Petition for Minor’s Compromise for
Plaintiff’s T.B., L.B., C.B., and B.B. ECF No. 99 (“Petition”). The Court referred the
matter to Magistrate Judge Brian J. White for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).
ECF No. 100. The R&R recommends granting the Petition. ECF No. 102 (“R&R”). The
parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R within 14 days of the date of
the order. R&R at 6.
Case 3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL Document 104 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL
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
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district
judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing,
874 F.2d 614, 617 (9 th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment; see
also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
On December 30, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation Waiving Objection
Period on R&R and indicated that neither party intended to file objections or otherwise
oppose the R&R. ECF No. 103. There being no objections to the R&R, the Court having
reviewed 	the R&R, finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear 	error.
Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brian J. White’s R&R; (2)
APPROVES the Petition for Minor’s Compromise and Finds the Proposed Settlement Fair
and Reasonable.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Case 3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL Document 104 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2