Oscar Estevan Valle v. Dr. Richard M. Obler and John Doe, National City Police Officer
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending the denial of Defendant Dr. Obler's Motion to Dismiss a Second Amended Complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff alleging a nonconsensual rectal examination in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court adopted the R&R in its entirety, denied the Motion to Dismiss, and ordered the defendant to file an answer within 30 days.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 49)“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 49) is adopted in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which a party objects. The order notes that no party filed an objection. While the order states the court reviewed the R&R and record, the legal standard cited (de novo for objected portions) implies that for unobjected portions, the court reviews for clear error. However, the order explicitly states it 'reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions,' and adopts it 'in its entirety.' In the Ninth Circuit, when no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the R&R de novo, but may do so. The court's action to adopt the R&R is procedurally sound and consistent with the cited authorities (Wang v. Masaitis; United States v. Reyna-Tapia). The court's decision to adopt the R&R is a discretionary act permitted by statute. |
Denial of Defendant Dr. Obler's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33)“Dr. Obler’s Motion to Dismiss the SAC (ECF No. 33) is denied.” | de novo | agree with court The denial of the motion to dismiss is the substantive outcome of adopting the R&R. The R&R recommended denial. The district court adopted the R&R. The standard of review for the underlying Rule 12(b)(6) motion is de novo. The order does not recite the specific legal reasoning for why the motion was denied (e.g., failure to state a claim), but rather relies on the adoption of the R&R. Since the R&R is not provided in the text, the court's decision is based on the magistrate's findings. The procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R to deny the motion is correct. The court's decision follows from the law and the record as recited (the R&R and the lack of objections). |
Ordering Defendant Dr. Obler to file an answer“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dr. Obler shall file an answer to the SAC within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Order.” | unclear | agree with court This is a standard procedural order following the denial of a motion to dismiss. It is consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the timing of responsive pleadings. There is no legal error in ordering an answer after a motion to dismiss is denied. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). It correctly notes that no objections were filed. It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Wang and Reyna-Tapia) for the proposition that de novo review is not required for unobjected portions. The court states it reviewed the R&R and record, and then adopts the R&R in its entirety. This is a permissible exercise of the court's discretion. The order is concise and follows standard practice for adopting an unobjected R&R.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 OSCAR ESTEVAN VALLE, Case No.: 3:23-cv-02128-WQH-DEB 13 ORDER Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 16 DR. RICHARD M. OBLER and JOHN 17 DOE, National City Police Officer, 18 19 Defendants. 20 HAYES, Judge: 21 The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation Denying Defendant 22 Dr. Obler’s Motion to Dismiss issued by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher. (ECF No. 23 49.) 24 On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff Oscar Estevan Valle (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed 25 a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 14.) 26 Plaintiff asserts federal constitutional claims relating to an alleged nonconsensual rectal 27 examination he received at Paradise Valley Hospital while in police custody. Id. 28 1 On September 24, 2024, the Court issued a Screening Order allowing the SAC’s 2 Fourth Amendment claims against Defendants Dr. Richard Obler and Officer John Doe to 3 proceed. (ECF No. 15.) 4 On February 6, 2026, Dr. Obler filed a Motion to Dismiss the SAC pursuant to 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 33.) On March 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed 6 an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the SAC. (ECF No. 35.) On March 16, 2026, Dr. 7 Obler filed a Reply. (ECF No. 36.) 8 On July 9, 2026, Judge Butcher issued a Report and Recommendation 9 recommending that this Court deny Dr. Obler’s Motion to Dismiss the SAC. (ECF No. 49.) 10 Judge Butcher ordered that any objection to the Report and Recommendation must be filed 11 by July 23, 2026. Id. at 9. 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. 49) is 27 adopted in its entirety. Dr. Obler’s Motion to Dismiss the SAC (ECF No. 33) is denied. 28 l IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dr. Obler shall file an answer to the SAC within 2 || thirty (30) days of the filing of this Order. 3 4 Dated: July 29, 2026 BE: eg Ze. Ma 5 Hon, William Q. Hayes United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 3:23-cv-02128-WQH-DEB