McCloud v. Bird-Hunt
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered the defendants' motion to dismiss and the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, noting that no objections were filed by either party. The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is ADOPTED in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Because no objections were filed, the court was not required to conduct a de novo review of the specific findings, though it stated it reviewed the record. The adoption of the R&R is procedurally appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). |
Granting of the Motion to Dismiss“The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED.” | unclear | unsure The order does not specify the legal basis for the dismissal (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim, or Rule 12(b)(1) lack of jurisdiction). It relies entirely on the adoption of the R&R. Without the text of the R&R or the specific grounds for dismissal, it is impossible to verify if the legal standard was correctly applied to the facts. |
Dismissal of the Complaint with Prejudice“The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.” | unclear | unsure Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits. The order does not explain why the claims failed to state a claim or why leave to amend was denied (if applicable). The decision to dismiss with prejudice rather than without prejudice is not justified in the text of this order. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound in its handling of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. It correctly cites the statutory and case law standards for reviewing an R&R when no objections are filed. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' order because it provides no substantive reasoning for the underlying dismissal of the complaint. It simply adopts the R&R and grants the motion without stating the legal grounds (e.g., failure to state a claim) or the factual basis for the dismissal with prejudice. A reader of this order alone cannot determine if the law was applied correctly to the specific claims in the complaint.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIE MCCLOUD, Case No.: 3:19-cv-00618-WQH-JLB 12 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 T. BIRD-HUNT, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF 19 No. 10) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 20 17). 21 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 22 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 24 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 25 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 26 district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 27 which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 28 1 ||}2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 2 ||(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 3 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 4 || correct.”). 5 The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. The Court has 6 || reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is 8 || ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF No. 10) is 9 ||GRANTED. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 10 || Dated: February 11, 2020 itt Z. A a 1] Hon. William Q. Hayes 2 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28