Toney v. Gwathey M.D.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and a magistrate judge's report and recommendation recommending the motion be denied. The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and denied the motion for preliminary injunction.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 42) 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), a district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which a party objects. The order notes that no party filed an objection. While the court states it will make a de novo determination, it is legally permissible to adopt the R&R without a full de novo review of every fact when no objections are raised, provided the court reviews the record for clear error. The order states the court reviewed the record and submissions, satisfying the requirement to ensure the R&R is not clearly erroneous. The adoption is procedurally sound. |
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction“The Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 19) is denied.” | de novo | agree with court The court denied the motion by adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. The order does not recite the specific facts or legal analysis supporting the denial of the injunction (e.g., likelihood of success, irreparable harm). However, because the court adopted the R&R in its entirety after reviewing the record, the denial is procedurally valid. The substantive correctness depends on the unrecited R&R, but the procedural mechanism of the order is correct. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable 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 and 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 record before adopting the R&R, which is the correct procedure. The order is brief and does not recite the underlying merits analysis, but this is acceptable for an order adopting an R&R where the R&R itself contains the analysis.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN TONEY, Case No.: 3:18-cv-2786-WQH-KSC BOP No. 6832298 12 ORDER 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 DR. J. GWATHY; NOLTE 16 RACHELLE, M.D.; WILLIAM LEWIS, II; MR. CHARLES 17 SAMUELS, JR., 18 19 Defendants. 20 HAYES, Judge: 21 The matters before the Court are the Motion for Order to Show Case for Preliminary 22 Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 19) and the Report 23 and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 42). 24 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 25 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 26 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 27 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 28 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 1 || district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 2 which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 3 ||2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 4 ||(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 5 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 6 || correct.”’). 7 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 8 ||reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 42) is 10 || adopted in its entirety. The Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 19) is 11 denied. 12 |} Dated: September 25, 2019 BME: ie Z. A a 13 Hon. William Q. Hayes 14 United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28