Holestine v. Covello
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding a pro se prisoner's motion for leave to file an amended complaint and a pending motion to dismiss. The court adopted the R&R, granted leave to file the First Amended Complaint, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adopting the Report and Recommendation“The Court ADOPTS the R&R IN FULL.” | 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), de novo review is required only for portions of the R&R to which a party has objected. Since no party timely objected, the court was not required to conduct a de novo review, though it stated it had read the briefing and found the reasoning sound. The adoption is procedurally correct. |
Granting Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint“The Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED” | unclear | agree with court The order notes that no party opposed the motion and that the Magistrate Judge recommended granting it. While the order does not explicitly state the legal standard for leave to amend (Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)), the grant is consistent with the lack of opposition and the magistrate's recommendation. In the absence of a stated standard in the order itself, the standard is marked as unclear, but the decision is procedurally sound given the acquiescence of the parties. |
Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot“The Motion to Dismiss challenges the sufficiency of a superseded pleading, so that Motion is DENIED AS MOOT.” | unclear | agree with court When a plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint, the original complaint is superseded. A motion to dismiss the original complaint becomes moot because the court no longer has jurisdiction over the superseded pleading. This is a standard procedural outcome in federal civil litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for the Magistrate Judge's R&R, noting that no objections were filed. It correctly grants the unopposed motion for leave to amend and correctly denies the motion to dismiss as moot because the original complaint was superseded. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ERNEST KELLY HOLESTINE, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0159-LAB-JLB CDCR #J-01366, 11 ORDER: Plaintiff, 12 vs. 1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 RECOMMENDATION [Dkt. 27]
14 2) GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE PATRICK COVELLO, et al., TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 15 Defendants. COMPLAINT [Dkt. 24]; and 16 3) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [Dkt. 19] 17 18 Ernest Kelly Holestine, currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison 19 (“SVSP”) in Soledad, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Leave to 20 File a First Amended Complaint. Dkt. 24. No party opposed the Motion, and each 21 Defendant served with the Motion filed a Joint Notice of Non-Opposition to it. No 22 party timely objected to Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s Report and 23 Recommendation, Dkt. 27, that the Court grant that Motion and deny as moot 24 Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss the initial complaint. Dkt. 19. 25 Civil Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636 govern review of a magistrate judge’s 26 R&R on a dispositive motion. They require de novo review of only objected-to 27 portions of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States 28 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (de novo review 1 not required unless party objects to R&R). Parties acquiesce to an R&R by not 2 raising a timely objection. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 3 The Court has read the briefing and Judge Burkhardt’s R&R. The R&R’s 4 reasoning is sound and its disposition correct. The Court ADOPTS the R&R IN 5 FULL. The Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED, 6 The Motion to Dismiss challenges the sufficiency of a superseded pleading, so that 7 Motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: December 21, 2020 11 Hon. Larry Alan Burns Chief United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28