Moody v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, noting that no objections were filed by either party. The court adopted the R&R in its entirety, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on specific claims against Plaintiffs Deans, Jones, and others, while denying the motion as moot on one claim and setting a final pretrial conference.
| 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 for reviewing a Report and Recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court must make a de novo determination of portions of the report to which objection is made. The order explicitly states that 'no objections have been filed by either party.' Consequently, the court was not required to conduct a de novo review of the merits but was required to review the R&R for clear error. The court states it 'reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties,' which satisfies the duty to ensure the R&R is not clearly erroneous. Adopting the R&R in its entirety is the standard procedural outcome when no objections are raised and the R&R is not clearly erroneous. |
Granting Summary Judgment on Conspiracy-to-Retaliate Claims“The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs Gary T. Deans and Donnel E. Jones as to Plaintiffs’ conspiracy-to-retaliate claims.” | unclear | unsure The order does not recite the specific factual or legal basis for granting summary judgment on these claims, relying instead on the adopted R&R. Without the text of the R&R or the underlying record, it is impossible to verify if the legal standard for summary judgment (Rule 56) was correctly applied to the specific facts of the conspiracy claims. However, procedurally, the district court's adoption of the R&R is valid. Substantively, the decision is 'unsure' because the order itself does not provide the reasoning required to evaluate the correctness of the application of law to the facts. |
Granting Summary Judgment on Official-Capacity Claim“The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Donnel E. Jones as to Plaintiff's official-capacity claim against Defendant Paramo.” | unclear | unsure Similar to the conspiracy claims, the order does not state the legal or factual reasons for granting summary judgment on this claim. It relies entirely on the adopted R&R. While the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is correct, the substantive correctness of the decision cannot be assessed from the face of this order alone because the underlying reasoning is omitted. |
Denying Summary Judgment as Moot on Retaliation Claim“Summary judgment is denied as moot as to Plaintiff Donnel E. Jones’s retaliation claim against Defendants Bravo, Salazar, and Paramo.” | unclear | unsure The order states the motion is denied 'as moot.' This is a procedural disposition indicating that the claim is no longer live or that the relief sought is no longer available, rather than a decision on the merits. The order does not explain why the claim is moot. Without this explanation, it is impossible to determine if the mootness determination was legally correct. However, denying a motion as moot is a standard procedural tool when a claim becomes moot before a final decision on the merits is rendered. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standards for reviewing a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). It correctly notes that no objections were filed, which relieves the court of the duty to conduct a de novo review of the merits. It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent (Wang and Reyna-Tapia) to support this procedural posture. The court states that it reviewed the R&R and the record, which is the minimum required to ensure the R&R is not clearly erroneous. The order is 'sound' because it follows the correct procedural steps for adopting an unobjected-to R&R. It is not 'sound with gaps' because it does not skip any required procedural steps; the lack of substantive reasoning is a direct consequence of the procedural posture (no objections), not a failure of the court to address arguments.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE L. MOODY, et al., Case No.: 3:18-cv-01110-WQH-AGS 12 ORDER Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 15 OF CORRECTIONS AND 16 REHABILITATION, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 HAYES, Judge: 20 The matter before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by 21 Defendants (ECF No. 56) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate 22 Judge (ECF No. 64). 23 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 24 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 25 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 26 report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 27 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 28 The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation 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. 64) is 8 || ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants (ECF 9 56) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Clerk of the Court shall 10 enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs Gary T. Deans and Donnel E. 11 ||Jones as to Plaintiffs’ conspiracy-to-retaliate claims. The Clerk of the Court shall enter 12 ||judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Donnel E. Jones as to Plaintiff's 13 || official-capacity claim against Defendant Paramo. Summary judgment is denied as moot 14 || as to Plaintiff Donnel E. Jones’s retaliation claim against Defendants Bravo, Salazar, and 15 || Paramo. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final pretrial conference is set for April 29 17 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable William Q. Hayes. Unless otherwise ordered b: 18 || the Court, all parties shall appear telephonically for the Final Pretrial Conference. Partie 19 || are directed to join on a conference call, then contact K. Sellars 619-321-0238 at the tim 20 the conference. The parties shall lodge an amended proposed pretrial order on or befor 21 March 19, 2021. 22 || Dated: February 16, 2021 BE: eg Ze. A a 23 Hon, William Q. Hayes United States District Court 25 26 27 28