Christopher Dawel Gomez v. Emilio Gonzalez #3965, San Diego Sheriff; County of San Diego; San Diego County Sheriffs Department; Jose De La Torre; and Does 1–10, inclusive
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding a Motion to Dismiss in a civil rights and state tort case. The court adopted the R&R, granting the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's state law negligence and battery claims without prejudice and denying the motion in all other respects.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 99) is adopted in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made. The order notes that no party filed an objection. While the order states it adopted the R&R 'in its entirety' and cites the de novo standard, the citation to *Wang* and *Reyna-Tapia* suggests the court may have relied on the lack of objections to avoid a full de novo review of the merits, or simply adopted the magistrate's findings. However, the operative order adopts the R&R, which is the correct procedural mechanism. The 'de novo' standard listed in the prompt's instructions is the default for R&R review, but the order's citation to *Wang* implies a lower standard (clear error) might have been applied due to lack of objection. Nevertheless, the decision to adopt the R&R is procedurally sound. |
Granting Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims“Defendant De La Torre’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 88) is granted to Plaintiffs negligence and battery claims and denied in all other respects. All dismissals are without prejudice and with leave to amend.” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate's recommendation to dismiss the state law claims (negligence and battery) without prejudice. The order does not recite the specific legal reasoning for why these claims fail (e.g., failure to state a claim, qualified immunity, etc.), relying instead on the R&R. Since the R&R is not provided in the text, the court's decision to adopt it is procedurally correct, but the substantive legal basis is not visible in this order. The dismissal without prejudice and leave to amend is a standard and appropriate remedy for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal where amendment might cure the defect. |
Denying Motion to Dismiss Federal Claims“Defendant De La Torre’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 88) is granted to Plaintiffs negligence and battery claims and denied in all other respects.” | de novo | agree with court The court denied the motion to dismiss the remaining claims (presumably the federal constitutional claims). This follows from the adoption of the R&R which recommended denying the motion in all other respects. This is a standard outcome where some claims survive a motion to dismiss. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard for reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, notes the lack of objections, and adopts the R&R. The citations to *Wang* and *Reyna-Tapia* support the court's authority to adopt the R&R without a full de novo review of the merits given the lack of objections. The operative orders (granting in part, denying in part, allowing amendment) are clear and standard.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 CHRISTOPHER DAWEL GOMEZ, Case No.: 3:23-cv-02026-WQH-DDL 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 16 EMILIO GONZALEZ #3965, San Diego Sheriff; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; SAN 17 DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFFS 18 DEPARTMENT; JOSE DE LA TORRE; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 HAYES, Judge: 21 The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation for Order Granting 22 in Part and Denying in Part Defendant De La Torre’s Motion to Dismiss (“Report and 23 Recommendation”) issued by Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner. (ECF No. 99.) 24 On June 6, 2025, Plaintiff Christopher Dawel Gomez (“Plaintiff”) filed a First 25 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Emilio Gonzalez, Jose De La Torre (“De 26 La Torre”), County of San Diego, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, and Does 1– 27 28 1 10. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff asserts federal constitutional and state tort claims relating to his 2 treatment by Sheriff’s deputies during his booking at the San Diego Central Jail. Id. 3 On November 7, 2025, Defendant De La Torre filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 4 FAC (“Motion to Dismiss”). (ECF No. 88.) On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a 5 Response in Opposition to Defendant De La Torre’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 92.) On 6 January 5, 2026, Defendant De La Torre filed a Reply. (ECF No. 95.) 7 On January 29, 2026, Judge Leshner issued a Report and Recommendation 8 recommending that this Court grant the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice as to 9 Plaintiff’s state law claims and deny the Motion to Dismiss in all other respects. (ECF No. 10 99.) Judge Leshner ordered that any objection to the Report and Recommendation must be 11 filed by February 5, 2026. Id. at 14. 12 The docket reflects that no party has filed an objection to the Report and 13 Recommendation. 14 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 15 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. 16 § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 17 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 18 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 19 district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to 20 which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); 21 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the 22 Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 23 findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 24 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the 25 submissions of the parties. 26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 99) is 27 adopted in its entirety. Defendant De La Torre’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 88) is granted 28 1 to Plaintiffs negligence and battery claims and denied in all other respects. All 2 || dismissals are without prejudice and with leave to amend. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 4 || thirty (30) days of the filing of this Order. If no amended complaint is filed within thirty 5 ||(30) days, Defendant De La Torre shall file an answer to the FAC within forty-five (45) 6 || days of the filing of this Order. 7 8 || Dated: May 11, 2026 Nitta Z. Ma 9 Hon, William Q. Hayes 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3