McCloud v. Bird-Hunt
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court vacated a prior order and judgment, then adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to grant the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The court dismissed the plaintiff's due process claim against Defendant Lewis and all claims for damages against the defendants in their official capacities without leave to amend.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Vacatur of prior Order and Clerk's Judgment“The Order (ECF No. 18) and Clerk’s Judgment (ECF No. 19) filed on February 12, 2020 are HEREBY VACATED.” | unclear | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to correct a clerical or procedural error by vacating a previously entered order on the same day. This is a standard procedural mechanism to ensure the final judgment reflects the correct legal disposition. |
Adoption of 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b). Although the standard for unobjected portions is generally not de novo, the court stated it reviewed the record and submissions, satisfying the requirement to ensure the R&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law before adoption. |
Granting of Motion to Dismiss“The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED.” | unclear | agree with court The order does not specify the rule under which the motion was filed (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(b)(1)), but the dismissal of claims typically follows the standard for failure to state a claim or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court adopted the Magistrate's analysis, which presumably applied the correct standard. |
Dismissal of Due Process Claim against Defendant Lewis“The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend Plaintiff's due process claim against Defendant Lewis” | unclear | unsure The order does not provide the factual or legal basis for dismissing this specific claim. However, dismissing without leave to amend is appropriate if the complaint is legally deficient in a way that cannot be cured by amendment (e.g., failure to state a constitutional claim against a specific defendant). |
Dismissal of Damages Claims against Defendants in Official Capacities“and Plaintiff’s claims for damages against all Defendants in their official capacities.” | unclear | agree with court This dismissal is legally correct. Under the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity, state officials sued in their official capacities are not 'persons' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and cannot be liable for damages. Only injunctive or declaratory relief is available against official-capacity defendants. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly identifies the procedural framework for adopting a Magistrate Judge's R&R under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b). It correctly notes that no objections were filed, which generally lowers the standard of review, but the court still states it reviewed the record, ensuring the adoption is not arbitrary. The dismissal of official-capacity damages claims is legally sound based on well-established sovereign immunity principles, though the order does not explicitly cite the Eleventh Amendment or § 1983 case law for this specific point. The dismissal of the due process claim lacks specific reasoning in the order itself, relying entirely on the adopted R&R.
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 AMENDED ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 T. BIRD-HUNT, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The Order (ECF No. 18) and Clerk’s Judgment (ECF No. 19) filed on February 12, 19 2020 are HEREBY VACATED. 20 The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF 21 No. 10) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 22 17). 23 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 24 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 25 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 26 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 27 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 28 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 The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. 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. 17) is 10 || ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF No. 10) is 11 |}GRANTED. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend 12 || Plaintiff's due process claim against Defendant Lewis and Plaintiff’s claims for damages 13 || against all Defendants in their official capacities. 14 || Dated: February 12, 2020 Nitta Ze. A a 15 Hon, William Q. Hayes 16 United States District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28