David A. Thompson v. James S. Hill, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as moot, finding no objections were filed and no clear error existed. The court adopted the R&R, denied the motion as moot, and ordered Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R in its entirety” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R. Because no objections were filed by the parties, the court was not required to conduct a full de novo review but rather to ensure there was no clear error on the face of the record. The court explicitly stated it reviewed the R&R and found it 'thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error,' which satisfies the legal requirement for adoption in the absence of objections. |
Denial of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot“DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 48)” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate's recommendation to deny the motion as moot. While the order does not detail the specific factual basis for mootness (likely the filing of a Third Amended Complaint, as suggested by the subsequent order to respond to it), the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is legally sound. The court relied on the Magistrate's findings, which it found free of clear error. |
Order to Respond to Third Amended Complaint“ORDERS Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, one is filed, within twenty-one (21) days of its entry on the docket.” | unclear | agree with court This is a standard procedural order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and local rules, allowing a plaintiff to amend their complaint and requiring the defendant to respond within the standard 21-day period. It is a routine case management directive. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R in the absence of objections (clear error). It explicitly states that no objections were filed and that the court reviewed the R&R for clear error, finding none. The adoption of the R&R and the subsequent procedural orders follow logically from this finding. The order is concise but contains all necessary elements for a valid ruling on an R&R.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID A. THOMPSON, Case No.: 24-CV-357 TWR (DDL) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. & RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT 14 JAMES S. HILL, et al., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 15 Defendants. DISMISS 16 (ECF Nos. 48, 66) 17 18 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended 19 Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Which Relief May Be Granted (“Mot.,” ECF 20 No. 48). Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner has issued a Report and Recommendation for 21 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot (“R&R,” ECF No. 66). Having carefully 22 reviewed the Parties’ arguments, Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R, and the law, the Court 23 ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R in its entirety and DENIES AS MOOT 24 Defendants’ Motion, as follows. 25 BACKGROUND 26 Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the 27 factual and procedural history underlying the instant Motion. (See R&R at 2–4.) This 28 Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein. 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending 3 before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those 4 portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, 5 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 6 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United 7 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is 8 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 9 in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note 10 to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. 11 denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 12 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 13 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 14 ANALYSIS 15 As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge 16 Leshner’s R&R. (See R&R at 10 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than 17 February 5, 2026).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well- 18 reasoned, and contains no clear error. The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge 19 Leshner’s R&R in its entirety and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion. 20 CONCLUSION 21 In light of the foregoing, the Court: 22 (1) ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R (ECF No. 66); 23 (2) DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 48); and 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 (3) ORDERS Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, 2 one is filed, within twenty-one (21) days of its entry on the docket. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: March 3, 2026 ——— (2 5 [aD (re 6 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 4 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28