Holestine v. R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J.uBattaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) regarding Defendants' motion to dismiss an Equal Protection claim and motion to strike, as well as Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. The court adopted the R&R in its entirety, granting the motion to dismiss the Equal Protection claim, granting leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, and denying the motion to strike as moot in part.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the district judge must make a de novo determination of portions to which objection is made. The order states that 'Neither party has filed objections to the R&R.' Therefore, the court was not required to conduct a full de novo review of the merits but rather satisfied itself that there was 'no clear error on the face of the record.' The court found the R&R 'thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.' This procedural posture and the resulting adoption are consistent with federal law. |
Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Equal Protection Claim“(2) GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim” | unclear | unsure The district court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss the Equal Protection claim. The order does not recite the specific legal reasoning or standard of review (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard) applied by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R. However, the district court's role here was to review the R&R for clear error (given no objections) or de novo (if objections existed). Since the court found no clear error in the R&R's recommendation to dismiss, the decision follows procedurally from the adoption of the R&R. Without the text of the R&R, the substantive legal correctness of the dismissal cannot be fully evaluated, but the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is sound. |
Denying in Part as Moot Defendants' Motion to Strike“(3) DENIES IN PART AS MOOT Defendants’ motion to strike” | unclear | agree with court The court adopted the R&R's recommendation to deny the motion to strike in part as moot. This typically occurs when the subject of the motion (e.g., a specific claim or allegation) is already dismissed or removed from the case, rendering the strike motion unnecessary. The court's adoption of this recommendation is procedurally sound as part of the overall adoption of the R&R. |
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint“(4) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint” | unclear | agree with court The court granted leave to amend, adopting the R&R's recommendation. The order includes a specific advisory that the Third Amended Complaint 'must not include punitive damages under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.' This restriction is legally sound because the Rehabilitation Act and ADA generally do not provide for punitive damages. Granting leave to amend is a discretionary decision, and the court's adoption of the R&R's recommendation, which presumably found the amendment not to be futile or unduly prejudicial, is consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. |
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Increase Page Limit“(5) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to increase page limit” | unclear | agree with court The court granted the request to increase the page limit for the Third Amended Complaint. This is a procedural matter within the court's discretion. The adoption of the R&R's recommendation on this point is procedurally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's R&R under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). It correctly notes that no objections were filed, thereby applying the 'clear error' standard rather than a full de novo review of the merits. The court cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Remsing, Reyna-Tapia) to support this procedural framework. The substantive rulings (dismissal of Equal Protection claim, leave to amend) are adopted from the R&R, which the court found to be 'thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.' While the order does not detail the substantive legal reasoning for the dismissal of the Equal Protection claim, this is consistent with the 'clear error' review standard when no objections are filed. The advisory regarding punitive damages is legally accurate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST KELLY HOLESTINE, Case No.: 18-CV-2094-AJB(WVG)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 14 R.J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. FACILITY et al., 15 No. 55); Defendants. 16 (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 17 MOTION TO DISMISS, (Doc. No. 49);
18 (3) DENYING IN PART AS MOOT 19 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE (Doc. No. 49); 20 21 (4) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 22 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, 23 (Doc. No. 52); AND 24 (5) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 25 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INCREASE PAGE LIMIT, (Doc. No. 26 52). 27 28 1 Presently before the Court are (1) Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s punitive 2 damages claim, and motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim, (Doc. No. 49), 3 and (2) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint, and request to 4 increase page limit, (Doc. No. 52). The Court referred this matter to Magistrate William V. 5 Gallo for a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on July 23, 2020. 6 (Doc. No. 55.) The R&R recommends that the Court: (1) grant Defendants’ motion to 7 dismiss with regard to Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim; (2) deny in part as moot 8 Defendant’s motion to strike; (3) grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file Third Amended 9 Complaint; and (4) grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to increase page limit. (Id. at 21.) The 10 parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by August 23, 2020, and that 11 no replies in response will be accepted. (Id.) 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 13 judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 14 a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 15 and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 16 made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 17 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 18 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 19 recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 20 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 21 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 22 Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 23 hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety; (2) GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss 24 with regard to Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim; (3) DENIES IN PART AS MOOT 25 Defendants’ motion to strike; (4) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file Third 26 Amended Complaint, advising Plaintiff that the Third Amended Complaint must not 27 include punitive damages under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities 28 Act; and (5) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to increase page limit. 1 Plaintiff is to file a Third Amended Complaint, not inconsistent with this Order or 2 R&R by October 26, 2020. 3 4 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 ||Dated: August 27, 2020 Q ZS iz : 2 7 Hon. Anthony J.@Battaglia 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28