Mora v. Montgomery
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommending summary judgment for the defendants in a pro se prisoner civil rights action, noting that neither party filed objections. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted summary judgment to the defendants.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Rodriguez’s report and recommendation” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation when no objections are filed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which specific objections are made. When no objections are filed, the court reviews the report for clear error. The order correctly identifies that no objections were filed and applies the clear error standard, finding no clear error on the face of the record. This is the legally correct procedure. |
Granting of Summary Judgment to Defendants“and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.” | de novo | agree with court The court granted summary judgment based on the adoption of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. The order does not independently analyze the merits of the summary judgment motion (i.e., it does not cite specific evidence or legal standards for summary judgment under Rule 56). However, because the court adopted the R&R after finding no clear error, and the R&R was issued by a Magistrate Judge who presumably applied the correct standard, the procedural mechanism is sound. The court's reliance on the R&R is appropriate given the lack of objections. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for a Report and Recommendation when no objections are filed (clear error). It cites the correct statutory and rule-based authorities (Rule 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636) and relevant Ninth Circuit case law (Campbell, Reyna-Tapia) to support this standard. The court explicitly states that no objections were filed and that no clear error appears on the face of the record, leading to the adoption of the R&R. The reasoning directly answers the procedural posture of the case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 VICTOR MORA, Case No.: 3:22-cv-1431-RSH-LR CDCR #T-88372, 13 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE Plaintiff, 14 JUDGE’S REPORT AND vs. RECOMMENDATION AND 15 GRANTING SUMMARY TOR ROBINSON, Medical Doctor; 16 JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS NATHAN WILLIAMS, Medical Doctor, 17 [ECF No. 39] Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Victor Mora (“Plaintiff”), an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action 20 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights 21 by failing to provide adequate medical care. See ECF No 1. The Court dismissed the action 22 without prejudice on October 21, 2022, because Plaintiff had not paid the civil filing fee 23 and had not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 5. On November 24 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed IFP. ECF No. 6. In granting Plaintiff’s IFP 25 motion, the Court screened the Complaint and dismissed certain defendants. ECF No. 7. 26 What remains active in this litigation are Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Tor 27 Robinson and Nathan Williams (“Defendants”) for failure to provide adequate medical 28 1 care. ECF No. 7 at 3, 7. U.S. Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. issued a report and 2 recommendation in favor of granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 3 49. Judge Rodriguez ordered that any objections to the report and recommendation be filed 4 no later than February 21, 2025. Id. Neither party filed an objection. 5 A district court’s role in reviewing the report and recommendation is set forth in 6 Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Rule 72(b) 7 provides in part: 8 (2) Objections. Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written 9 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. . . . 10 (3) Resolving Objections. The district judge must determine de novo 11 any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 12 objected to. 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (emphasis added). Likewise, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) provides in 14 part: 15 Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may 16 serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court 17 shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 18 specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added). 20 In the absence of a timely objection, “the Court need only satisfy itself that there is 21 no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 510 F.2d 196, 206 23 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 24 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 25 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”) (emphasis in original). 26 // 27 // 28 l Here, neither party has objected to Judge Rodriguez’s Report and Recommendation. 2 clear error appears on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge 3 || Rodriguez’s report and recommendation and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary 4 ||judgment. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. fork 7 ¢ Lowe 6 || Dated: March 4, 2025 7 Hon. Robert S. Hute g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ee □□