Purpura v. Does Members of the Inmate Classification Committee
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to grant Defendants' motion to dismiss in a prisoner civil rights case. The court adopted the Report in its entirety and granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“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. Because no objections were filed by the deadline, the court was not required to conduct a full de novo review of the merits but rather satisfied itself that there was no clear error on the face of the record. The court found the Report 'thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error,' which is the appropriate procedural posture for adopting an unobjected-to R&R. |
Grant of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss“GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend” | unclear | agree with court The order does not recite the specific legal standard applied to the underlying motion to dismiss (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard) because it relies entirely on the Magistrate Judge's analysis. However, granting the motion with leave to amend is a standard and appropriate disposition for a pro se prisoner's initial complaint that fails to state a claim, provided the defects are curable. The court's decision to allow amendment is consistent with the liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for an unobjected-to Report and Recommendation (clear error review rather than de novo review of the merits). It cites the correct statutory and case law authorities for this standard. The court explicitly states it reviewed the Report and found no clear error, which satisfies the procedural requirements for adoption. The order is concise but complete for its purpose.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK PURPURA, Case No.: 3:20-cv-01688-JAH-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING THE 13 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF 14 R. CALVERT, AND DOES MEMBERS No. 25) OF THE INMATE CLASSIFICATION 15 COMMITTEE, in their individual 16 capacities, 17 Defendant. 18 19 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) submitted to 20 this Court by the Honorable Bernard G. Skomal, United States Magistrate Judge, 21 recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 22 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the “district court 23 must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection 24 is made, and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or 25 recommendations made by the magistrate.” Love v. Scribner, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1222 26 (S.D. Cal. 2010)1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). “However, in the absence of timely 27 28 1 || objection, the Court ‘need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 2 ||record in order to accept the report and recommendation.’” Frando v. Gore, No. 21-CV- 3 || 1434 JLS (KSC), 2022 WL 772963, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2022) (citations omitted). 4 Here, potential objections were due by August 12, 2022, and replies by August 24, 5 |}2022. (ECF No. 25). The parties were “advised that the failure to file objections within 6 || the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s 7 order.” Jd. at 12-13 (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F 3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)). To date, 8 ||no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has since expired. The Court has 9 ||reviewed the Report and finds that it is “thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear 10 |lerror.” Frando, 2022 WL 772963, at *1. 11 In light of the absence of any objections, and Judge Skomal’s well-reasoned analysis, 12 Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss 13 || with leave to amend. Any subsequent amended complaint should be complete without 14 reference to prior complaints. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 |}DATED: August 16, 2022 19 JHON. JOHN A. HOUSTON 0 / UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Love v. Scribner Case 06cv640-WQH-RBB · 2010-02-18