Hammler v. Aviles
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a civil rights action. The court adopted the R&R and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in its entirety” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for an R&R. Because no party filed objections, the court was required to review the R&R for 'clear error' rather than de novo. The court explicitly stated it reviewed the R&R and found it 'thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error,' which is the correct procedural posture under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). |
Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment“GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 60, 72.)” | de novo | agree with court The court granted summary judgment on both the excessive force and retaliation claims based on the Magistrate Judge's findings. The order recites that the Magistrate found the takedown was objectively reasonable and the defendant entitled to qualified immunity, and that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding retaliation. While the district court's order does not independently analyze the merits in detail, it adopts the R&R which contains these findings. The decision follows from the law and the record as recited in the R&R. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for a Report and Recommendation in the absence of objections (clear error). It cites the correct statutory and case law authorities (28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Reyna-Tapia). The court explicitly states it reviewed the R&R and found no clear error before adopting it. The order is concise but complete for a non-objection adoption order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No.: 17-cv-01185-AJB-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 14 F. AVILES, RECOMMENDATION and 15 Defendant. (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 16 MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 JUDGMENT.
18 (Doc. Nos. 60, 72) 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 This is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by Allen Hammler 22 (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, against F. Aviles 23 (“Defendant”), a correctional officer.1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his civil 24 rights by performing a takedown maneuver in 2016 and retaliating against Plaintiff when 25 he accused Defendant, in a recorded statement, of using excessive force in connection with 26 the takedown incident. 27 28 1 Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on both claims. (Doc. 2 No. 60.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo for a Report 3 and Recommendation (“R&R”), which he issued on November 23, 2021. (Doc. No. 72.) 4 The R&R recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment 5 and enter judgment in his favor. (Id. at 1, 18.)2 6 Regarding Plaintiff’s excessive force claim, the Magistrate Judge found that: (A) 7 considering the undisputed facts, the takedown maneuver that Defendant used on Plaintiff 8 was objectively reasonable and cannot support a claim of excessive force; and (B) 9 Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 8, 12.) As to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, 10 the Magistrate Judge found that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to his 11 retaliation claim. (Id. at 15.) The parties were instructed to file written objections with the 12 Court no later than December 30, 2021. (Id. at 18.) 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 15 judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 16 a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 17 and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 18 made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. 19 Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). “The statute [§ 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear 20 that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 21 de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 22 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). Thus, in the absence of timely 23 objection(s), the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 24 record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s 25 note to 1983 amendment; Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1123. 26 // 27 28 1 Here, neither party has filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. Having 2 ||reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 3 || Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in its entirety and 4 ||GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 60, 72.) The Clerk of 5 || Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: January 6, 2022 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28