Buckelew v. Gore
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to quash service and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, along with a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommending the same. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is ADOPTED in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reviewing a Report and Recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made. The order notes that no objections were filed. While the court states it reviewed the record, the standard for unobjected portions is generally a 'clear error' review, though de novo review is permissible and often conducted to ensure accuracy. The adoption is procedurally sound. |
Granting of the Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or Failure to State a Claim“The Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or alternatively, Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendants (ECF 3) is GRANTED.” | unclear | unsure The order does not specify which ground (jurisdiction or pleading) was the basis for the grant, nor does it recite the specific facts or legal analysis from the R&R that led to this conclusion. It simply adopts the R&R. Without the text of the R&R or the underlying facts, it is impossible to verify if the legal application was correct. However, the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is valid. |
Dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice“Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.” | unclear | agree with court Dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy when a case is dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim where amendment might cure the defect. This is a legally appropriate disposition for the grounds listed in the motion. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct in its handling of the Report and Recommendation. It correctly identifies the statutory and rule-based standards for review and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the proposition that unobjected portions do not require de novo review. However, the order is extremely brief and does not recite the specific legal reasoning or factual findings from the R&R that support the dismissal. It relies entirely on the adoption of the R&R. While this is permissible, it provides no independent judicial analysis in the order itself.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DION SCOTT BUCKELEW, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00158-WQH-JLB 12 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 WILLIAM D. GORE, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matters before the Court are the Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss for Lack 19 of Personal Jurisdiction, or alternatively, Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by 20 Defendants (ECF No. 3) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate 21 Judge (ECF No. 9). 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 1 which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003) (“Neither the 3 || Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 4 || findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 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. 9) is 8 || ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss for Lack of Personal 9 || Jurisdiction, or alternatively, Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendants (ECF 10 3) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Any 11 motion for leave to file an amended pleading must be filed within 30 days of this Order. 12 |} Dated: September 3, 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