Gomez v. Madden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding Defendant Majid Mani's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in a civil case. The court adopted the R&R in its entirety, granting the motion in part and denying it in part, resulting in judgment for the defendant on claims one and three and the closure of the case.
| 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. 64) is ADOPTED in its entirety.” | 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), a district court 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 cites authority suggesting de novo review is not required for unobjected portions, it states it reviewed the record and submissions, and adopts the R&R. This is a procedurally sound disposition. |
Granting in part and denying in part Defendant Majid Mani's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment“The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Majid Mani (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.” | unclear | unsure The order adopts the Magistrate Judge's R&R without providing the specific factual or legal basis for why the motion was granted in part and denied in part. It relies entirely on the underlying R&R (ECF No. 64) for the merits. Without the R&R, the specific application of Rule 56 standards to the facts cannot be verified from this order alone, but the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is valid. |
Entry of judgment in favor of Defendant Majid Mani on claims one and three“The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant Majid Mani and against Plaintiff Ruben Gomez as to claims one and three of the Third Amended Complaint.” | unclear | agree with court This is the operative relief resulting from the partial grant of summary judgment. It is consistent with the adoption of the R&R. |
Closure of the case“The Clerk of Court shall close the case given the resulting lack of remaining claims and defendants.” | unclear | agree with court The court orders the case closed because no claims or defendants remain. This is a standard administrative order following the dismissal of all claims against all defendants. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority regarding the scope of review when no objections are filed. The court states it reviewed the record and submissions before adopting the R&R. The order is concise and follows standard practice for adopting an unobjected R&R.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN GOMEZ, Case No.: 3:16-cv-02316-WQH-WVG 12 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 MADDEN et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matters before the Court are the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by 19 Defendant Majid Mani (ECF No. 48) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the 20 Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 64). 21 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 22 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 24 report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 25 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 26 The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation 27 to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 28 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 The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. The Court has 5 reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 64) is 7 || ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant 8 || Majid Mani (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Clerk of 9 ||the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant Majid Mani and against Plaintiff 10 |]Ruben Gomez as to claims one and three of the Third Amended Complaint. The Clerk of 11 Court shall close the case given the resulting lack of remaining claims and defendants. 12 13 || Dated: September 8, 2020 BE: eg Ze. A a 14 Hon, William Q. Hayes 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28