Newman v. Berryhill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and a plaintiff's request for entry of default judgment in a Social Security action. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation, denied the request for default judgment, and dismissed the action without 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. 18) is ADOPTED in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made. The order recites this standard and cites supporting Ninth Circuit authority (Wang v. Masaitis; United States v. Reyna-Tapia) regarding the scope of review. The adoption of the R&R is a standard procedural mechanism for resolving the underlying claims or motions contained within it. |
Denial of Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default Judgment“Plaintiff George Newman’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED.” | unclear | unsure The order denies the plaintiff's request for default judgment without providing specific factual or legal reasoning in the text of the order itself. It notes that the plaintiff filed a supplemental document asserting proper service and requesting default. While the court states it reviewed the record and submissions, the specific basis for denying default (e.g., lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, or other procedural defect) is not explicitly detailed in this short order. However, the dismissal without prejudice suggests that the court found the case could not proceed to judgment at this time, likely due to a curable defect or the nature of the R&R adopted. |
Dismissal of the Action Without Prejudice“This action is dismissed without prejudice.” | unclear | unsure The dismissal without prejudice is consistent with the adoption of the R&R and the denial of default. In Social Security cases, dismissals without prejudice often occur when there is a procedural defect that can be cured, or when the court lacks jurisdiction but allows refiling. Without the text of the R&R (ECF No. 18), it is difficult to verify the specific legal basis for the dismissal, but the procedural posture (adopting R&R, denying default, dismissing without prejudice) is a common and legally permissible outcome in federal civil litigation when initial filings or service issues are unresolved or when the R&R recommends such a disposition. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound in its handling of the Report and Recommendation, correctly citing the statutory and case law standards for review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it does not explicitly state the legal or factual reasons for denying the plaintiff's request for default judgment or for dismissing the case without prejudice. It relies on the adoption of the R&R to implicitly support these outcomes, but a standalone order denying default and dismissing a case typically requires a brief explanation of the basis (e.g., lack of jurisdiction, failure to prosecute, etc.) to ensure the record is clear for any potential appeal or refiling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE NEWMAN, et al., Case No.: 3:19-cv-00036-WQH-MSB 12 ORDER Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner 15 of the Social Security 16 Administration, 17 Defendant. 18 19 HAYES, Judge: 20 The matters before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by the 21 Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 18). 22 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 23 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 25 report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 26 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 27 The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation 28 to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 1 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Neither the 2 || Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 3 || findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 4 On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff George Newman filed a Supplemental Document. (ECF 5 20). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant was properly served and requests entry of default 6 ||judgment. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the 7 || submissions of the parties. 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is 9 || ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff George Newman’s request for entry of default 10 ||judgment is DENIED. This action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court 11 close the case. 12 |} Dated: August 14, 2020 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