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) recommending the grant of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, with no objections filed by either party. The court adopted the R&R, granted the motion to dismiss with specific preclusions, and granted the plaintiff limited leave to amend the complaint.
| 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 court correctly applied the standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's R&R. Because no party filed objections, the court was required to review the R&R for 'clear error' rather than conducting a full de novo review of the merits. The court explicitly stated it reviewed the R&R and found it 'thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error,' which is the correct procedural posture under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). |
Grant of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss“GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss as follows: a. Defendants Black, Guzman, and the Does are DISMISSED without prejudice; b. Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacity are DISMISSED with prejudice; c. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Estrada is DISMISSED without prejudice; d. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim is DISMISSED without prejudice.” | unclear | unsure The order does not recite the specific legal grounds (e.g., failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) or lack of personal jurisdiction) for the dismissal of the specific claims and defendants. It relies entirely on the Magistrate Judge's R&R for the substantive legal analysis. While the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is correct, the order itself does not provide the factual or legal basis for the specific dismissals, making it impossible to verify the legal correctness of the underlying merits from the face of this order alone. |
Grant in Part and Deny in Part of Leave to Amend“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff leave to amend his FAC as follows: a. Leave to amend is DENIED as futile with respect to (i) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Estrada and (ii) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. b. Leave to amend is GRANTED as to claims asserted against Defendants Black, Guzman, or the Does only or, in the alternative, Plaintiff may notify the Court of his intent to proceed on his First Amendment freedom of expression and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims against Defendants Estrada and Alonzo, and First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Alonzo only.” | unclear | unsure The court denies leave to amend specific claims as 'futile.' This is a standard legal ground for denying leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). However, like the dismissal ruling, the order does not explain why these specific amendments would be futile (e.g., whether the plaintiff failed to allege facts that could cure the deficiencies). The decision is procedurally consistent with the adoption of the R&R, but the substantive reasoning is absent from this order. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound in its handling of the Magistrate Judge's R&R. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review (clear error in the absence of objections) and cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit and statutory authorities. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' order because it adopts the R&R in its entirety without reciting the underlying legal reasoning or factual findings that support the specific dismissals and the denial of leave to amend as futile. A reader of this order alone cannot determine if the law was applied correctly to the specific claims because the substantive analysis is contained in the referenced R&R (Doc. No. 26), not in this order.
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. 26); R. ESTRADA, et al., 15 (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 16 Defendants. MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 22);
17 (3) GRANTING IN PART AND 18 DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND 19 20 21 Before the Court is Defendants R. Estrada and Mario Alonzo’s Motion to Dismiss. 22 (Doc. No. 22.) The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit for a 23 Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on July 28, 2026. (Doc. No. 24 26.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. (Id. 25 at 1.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by August 11, 2026, 26 and replies by no later than fourteen days after being served with written objections. (Id. at 27 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. GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss as follows: 15 a. Defendants Black, Guzman, and the Does are DISMISSED without 16 prejudice; 17 b. Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their 18 official capacity are DISMISSED with prejudice; 19 c. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant 20 Estrada is DISMISSED without prejudice; 21 d. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim is 22 DISMISSED without prejudice. 23 3. GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff leave to amend his 24 FAC as follows: 25 a. Leave to amend is DENIED as futile with respect to (i) Plaintiff’s First 26 Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Estrada and 27 (ii) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. 28 1 b. Leave to amend is GRANTED as to claims asserted against Defendants 2 Black, Guzman, or the Does only or, in the alternative, Plaintiff may 3 notify the Court of his intent to proceed on his First Amendment 4 freedom of expression and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection 5 claims against Defendants Estrada and Alonzo, and First Amendment 6 retaliation claim against Defendant Alonzo only. 7 4. By no later than October 26, 2026, Plaintiff must either: 8 a. File an Amended Complaint consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s 9 R&R, or 10 b. Notify the Court of his intent to proceed on ouly his First Amendment 11 freedom of expression and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection 12 claims against Defendants Estrada and Alonzo, and his First 13 Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Alonzo. 14 5. Defendants must file a responsive pleading to the operative complaint by no 15 || later than November 30, 2026. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: August 24, 2026 © 18 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28