James v. Lee
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) on a motion to dismiss a prisoner's Fifth Amended Complaint, finding no objections were filed and no clear error existed. The court adopted the R&R, granting the motion to dismiss official capacity and qualified immunity claims while denying the motion to dismiss excessive force and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adopt the Report and Recommendation (R&R)“Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for an unobjected R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), when no objections are filed, the district judge need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record. The order explicitly notes that neither party filed objections and that the court reviewed the R&R and found it 'thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.' |
Grant Defendant's motion to dismiss claims against Defendant in his official capacity“(2) GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss claims against Defendant in his official capacity” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the R&R's recommendation to dismiss official capacity claims. In the context of § 1983 litigation, official capacity claims against individual defendants are often dismissed because they are functionally equivalent to claims against the entity itself, or because the individual is not a 'person' under § 1983 for official capacity purposes. While the specific legal reasoning is in the R&R (Doc. No. 159), the adoption of the R&R under the 'no clear error' standard is procedurally sound given the lack of objections. |
Grant Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim on the ground that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity“(3) GRANT Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim on the ground Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the R&R's recommendation to dismiss the deliberate indifference claim based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from civil liability for conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. The court's adoption of this recommendation is consistent with the 'no clear error' standard applied to the unobjected R&R. |
Deny Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's excessive force claim and Fourteenth Amendment claims for violation of bodily privacy and his right to be free from punishment“(4) DENY Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s excessive force claim and Fourteenth Amendment claims for violation of bodily privacy and his right to be free from punishment” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the R&R's recommendation to deny the motion to dismiss these specific claims. This suggests the R&R found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged facts to state a claim for excessive force and Fourteenth Amendment violations that survived the motion to dismiss stage. The adoption is procedurally correct under the 'no clear error' standard. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for an unobjected R&R (clear error) and cites the appropriate statutory and case law authorities (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Remsing, Reyna-Tapia). The court explicitly states that it reviewed the R&R and found no clear error, which is the required showing for adoption in the absence of objections. The specific merits of the underlying claims (qualified immunity, excessive force, etc.) are not analyzed in this order but are deferred to the R&R, which is permissible under the 'no clear error' standard.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KYLE ROBERT JAMES, Case No.: 16-cv-01592-AJB (JLB), consolidated with 17-cv-00859-AJB 12 Plaintiff, (MDD) 13 v. ORDER: 14 BARBARA LEE, et al., 15 Defendants. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 16 No. 159); AND 17 (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 18 MOTION TO DISMISS, (Doc. No. 19 144) 20 Presently before the Court is Defendant Mark Kania’s (“Defendant”) motion to 21 dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 144.) The Court referred this matter to 22 Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt for a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), which 23 was issued on August 1, 2020. (Doc. No. 159.) The R&R recommends that the Court: (1) 24 grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss; (2) grant Defendant’s 25 motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in his official capacity; (3) 26 grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to serious medical 27 needs claim on the ground that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity; and (4) deny 28 Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s excessive force claim and Fourteenth 1 || Amendment claims for violation of bodily privacy and his right to be free from punishment. 2 || (Ud. at 29.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by August 21, 3 || 2020, and a reply to the objections no later than September 4, 2020. Ud.) 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 5 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 6 de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 7 ||and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 8 made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 9 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 10 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 11 |}recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 12 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 14 || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 15 hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; (2) GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss □□□□□□□□□□□ 16 ||claims against Defendant in his official capacity; (3) GRANT Defendant’s motion 17 ||to dismiss Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim on the ground 18 Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity; and (4) DENY Defendant’s motion to 19 dismiss Plaintiff’s excessive force claim and Fourteenth Amendment claims for violation 20 || of bodily privacy and his right to be free from punishment. (Doc. No. 159.) 21 22 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: September 11, 2020 | ZS i : Le 24 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28