St. Sauver v. Byrd-Hunt
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding Defendant's motion for summary judgment in a prisoner civil rights case. The court adopted the Report in its entirety, granting the motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claims and one Eighth Amendment excessive force claim, while denying the motion regarding the remaining Eighth Amendment excessive force claim.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's R&R. It noted that no objections were filed, which typically triggers a 'clear error' review, but the court stated it reviewed the report and found it 'thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error.' While the court cited the de novo standard for objections, it correctly concluded that the report was acceptable under the applicable standard given the lack of objections and its own review. |
Granting of Defendant's motion regarding First Amendment retaliation claims“GRANTS Defendant’s motion as to all of Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate's recommendation without providing independent analysis in this order. Since the order states the report was 'thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error,' and no objections were filed, the adoption is procedurally sound based on the record presented in this order. |
Granting of Defendant's motion regarding the Eighth Amendment claim that Defendant ordered another inmate to attack Plaintiff“GRANTS Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment by ordering another inmate to attack Plaintiff” | de novo | agree with court Similar to the retaliation claims, the court adopted the Magistrate's recommendation. The order does not detail the factual or legal basis for this specific grant, relying instead on the finding that the R&R contained no clear error. |
Denial of Defendant's motion regarding the remaining Eighth Amendment excessive force claim“DENIES Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate's recommendation to deny summary judgment on this specific claim. The order relies on the finding that the R&R was well-reasoned and free of clear error. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's R&R, notes the lack of objections, and applies the 'clear error' standard (while also citing the de novo standard for context). The court explicitly states it reviewed the report and found no clear error. However, the order is a 'sound with gaps' type of decision because it does not independently analyze the merits of the underlying claims (First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment excessive force) but relies entirely on the adoption of the Magistrate's findings. This is permissible but leaves the specific legal reasoning implicit in the adopted R&R rather than explicit in this order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH ST. SAUVER Case No.: 20cv584-JAH (MDD)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING THE 13 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 BYRD-HUNT REGARDING DEFENDANT’S Defendant. 15 MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 28) 16 17 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) submitted to 18 this Court by the Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin, United States Magistrate Judge, 19 recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion for 20 summary judgment. 21 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the “district court 22 must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection 23 is made, and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or 24 recommendations made by the magistrate.” Love v. Scribner, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1222 25 (S.D. Cal. 2010)1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). “However, in the absence of timely 26 objection, the Court ‘need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 27 28 | |}record in order to accept the report and recommendation.’” Frando v. Gore, No. 21-CV- 2 || 1434 JLS (KSC), 2022 WL 772963, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2022) (citations omitted). 3 Here, potential objections were due by August 20, 2021, and replies by August 27, 4 ||2021. (ECF No. 28 at 18). The parties were “advised that the failure to file objections 5 || within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the 6 || Court’s order.” /d. (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F 3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)). To date, 7 ||no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has since expired. The Court has 8 ||reviewed the Report and finds that it is “thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear 9 |lerror.” Frando, 2022 WL 772963, at *1. In light of the absence of any objections, and 10 || Judge Dembin’s well-reasoned analysis, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety and 11 GRANTS Defendant’s motion as to all of Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation 12 ||claims; (2) GRANTS Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant used 13 || excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment by ordering another inmate to attack 14 || Plaintiff; and (3) DENIES Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant used 15 || excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 || DATED: June 16, 2022 bs Mb ste 20 1 J HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON / United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Love v. Scribner Case 06cv640-WQH-RBB · 2010-02-18