Marron v. Saha
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Report and Recommendation recommending the denial of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in a prisoner civil rights case. The court adopted the R&R in its entirety and denied the Motion to Dismiss.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Report and Recommendation“Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R.” | 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 Ninth Circuit precedent (United States v. Reyna-Tapia), de novo review is required only if objections are filed. Since no objections were filed, the court was not required to conduct de novo review, though it chose to do so and found the reasoning sound. The adoption is procedurally correct. |
Denial of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is DENIED.” | unclear | agree with court The court denied the motion based on its adoption of the Magistrate Judge's R&R. The order recites that the Magistrate Judge found the complaint sufficiently stated claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The District Court conducted a de novo review and agreed. While the specific legal analysis of the Eighth Amendment claim is contained in the R&R (not fully reproduced here), the procedural mechanism for denying the motion is sound. The court relied on the R&R's conclusion that the complaint met the pleading standards. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation in the absence of objections. It cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Reyna-Tapia) to support the proposition that de novo review is not mandatory when no objections are filed. The court explicitly states it conducted a de novo review anyway and found the reasoning sound, which is a permissible and prudent judicial action. The denial of the motion follows directly from the adoption of the R&R.
Opinion
7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALEJANDRO MARRON, Case No. 19-cv-01344-BAS-MSB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 RECOMMENDATION S. SAHA, M.D., et al., [ECF No. 10]; 14 Defendants. AND 15 (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 16 MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF No. 7] 17 18 Plaintiff filed this action on July 18, 2019, seeking declaratory relief and monetary 19 damages for an alleged violation of his civil rights alleging a violation of constitutional 20 rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that while 21 he was incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), Defendants Dr. 22 S. Saha, M.D. (“Saha”), and Dr. Griffith, M.D. (“Griffith”) (collectively, “Defendants”) 23 denied and delayed medical treatment and accommodations in violation of the Eighth 24 Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that although he reported to both Defendants 25 that he suffered from knee pain that made it difficult to access his top bunk, they provided 26 no medical treatment and disregarded his lower bunk assignment request for over six 27 months, exacerbating his condition. (Compl. at 9–10, 13.) 28 1 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Motion”) for failing 2 to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff 3 filed an opposition to the Motion on November 15, 2019. (ECF No. 9.) 4 On May 13, 2020, Judge Berg issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 5 finding that Plaintiff’s Complaint sufficiently stated claims on which relief could be 6 granted and recommending that the Motion be denied. (ECF No. 10.) The deadline for 7 the parties to object to the R&R was May 27, 2020. (Id. at 12.) To date, the parties have 8 not filed any objections or requests for additional time to do so. 9 The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are made. 10 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 11 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. “The statute makes it 12 clear,” however, “that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 13 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. 14 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see 15 also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that 16 where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate 17 judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, 18 de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” 19 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in the Ninth Circuit 20 and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of 21 course, de novo review of a[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R 22 & R.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 23 (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the 24 report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 25 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 26 In this case, the deadline to file objections was May 27, 2020. (ECF No. 10.) 27 However, neither party has filed objections or requested additional time to do so. 28 Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 1 at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the R&R, the Court 2 |iconcludes that Judge Berg’s reasoning is sound and agrees with the R&R’s 3 ||recommendation. Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS 4 || ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF 5 || No. 7) is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 é g ||DATED: June 15, 2020 (pill 4 (Bashan. 6 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Nelson v. Giurbino CIV. 04-CV0758-L(AJB) · 2005-10-20
- Nichols v. Logan 01CV1797BEN; Doc. 56 · 2004-11-23