JIDEOFOR AJAELO v. R. ESTRADA, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) on a Motion to Dismiss a First Amendment retaliation claim, finding no clear error as no objections were filed. The court adopted the R&R, denying the motion to dismiss as to Defendant Alonzo and granting it as to Defendant Estrada with leave to amend.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety” | de novo | agree with court The order explicitly states that because neither party filed objections, the court applied the 'clear error' standard ('need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record'). The court found the R&R 'thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.' |
Denial of Motion to Dismiss as to Defendant Alonzo“DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim as to Defendant Alonzo” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the motion as to Alonzo. Since no objections were filed, the district judge reviewed for clear error and found none. The decision follows the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). |
Grant of Motion to Dismiss as to Defendant Estrada with Leave to Amend“GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claim as to Defendant Estrada WITH LEAVE TO AMEND” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the motion as to Estrada. The court applied the clear error standard due to the lack of objections and found the R&R contained no clear error. Granting leave to amend is a standard discretionary practice when dismissal is based on pleading deficiencies. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard of review (clear error) given the lack of party objections to the R&R. It cites the correct statutory and case law authorities (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Remsing, Reyna-Tapia) to support this standard. The court explicitly states it reviewed the R&R and found it thorough and free of clear error, which is the required procedural step before adoption. The rulings follow directly from the adopted R&R.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIDEOFOR AJAELO, Case No.: 24-cv-2472-AJB-MMP 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND v. 14 RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 16); R. ESTRADA, et al., 15 (2) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS 16 Defendants. AS TO DEFENDANT ALONZO (Doc. No. 10); 17 18 (3) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AS TO DEFENDANT 19 ESTRADA (Doc. No. 10) 20 21 Before the Court is Defendants R. Estrada and Mario Alonzo’s Motion to Dismiss. 22 (Doc. No. 10.) The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit for a 23 Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on January 9, 2026. (Doc. 24 No. 16.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted 25 in part and denied in part. (Id. at 1.) The parties were instructed to file written objections 26 to the R&R by January 26, 2026, and replies by no later than fourteen days after being 27 served with written objections. (Id. at 14.) 28 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 2 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 3 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 4 || and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 5 ||made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 6 ||614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 7 || satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 8 recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 9 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 10 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 11 || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 12 || hereby: 13 (1) ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety; 14 (2) DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amendment 15 || retaliation claim as to Defendant Alonzo; 16 (3) GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs First Amendment 17 retaliation claim as to Defendant Estrada WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; 18 (4) Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint consistent with the Magistrate 19 || Judge’s R&R by no later than April 3, 2026. 20 (5) Defendants must file a responsive pleading to the operative complaint by no 21 || later than May 4, 2026. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: February 2, 2026 © 24 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28