Dorsey v. Paramo
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a prisoner civil rights case, noting that the plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the motion or objections to the Report. The court adopted the Report and granted the motion for summary judgment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“Thus, in the absence of any objections, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.” | agree with court The order correctly applies the standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. It cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Wang v. Masaitis; United States v. Reyna-Tapia) to establish that de novo review is not required when no objections are filed. The court's decision to adopt the report based on the absence of objections is procedurally sound. |
Granting of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 22), is GRANTED.” | unsure The district court granted summary judgment by adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The order does not independently analyze the merits of the Eighth Amendment claim or the qualified immunity defense, but rather incorporates the reasoning from the Report by reference. While the procedural mechanism (adoption of the R&R) is correct given the lack of objections, the order itself does not recite the factual or legal basis for the summary judgment, making it impossible to verify the substantive correctness of the underlying decision from this document alone. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in the absence of objections, citing appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent. However, it relies entirely on the incorporated Report for the substantive legal analysis regarding the Eighth Amendment claim and qualified immunity. While this is permissible, the order itself contains no independent reasoning on the merits.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JESSIE DORSEY, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00843-JAH-MDD 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT 12 v. AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 P. SHAKIBA, MOTION FOR SUMMARY 14 Defendant. JUDGMENT.
15 (ECF Nos. 22, 27). 16 17 On January 20, 2021, Plaintiff Jessie Dorsey (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner 18 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the operative amended civil rights complaint 19 (“FAC”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging an Eighth Amendment violation under the 20 United States Constitution at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Center (“RJD”) by 21 Defendant P. Shakiba (“Defendant”), a doctor at RJD. Plaintiff asserts Defendant was 22 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. On August 23, 2022, Defendant filed 23 a motion for summary judgment arguing (1) Plaintiff cannot establish the Defendant was 24 deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs; (2) Plaintiff’s damages are merely 25 speculative; and (3) Defendant has qualified immunity. (See generally, Mot.) Plaintiff did 26 not file an opposition to Defendant’s motion. 27 On January 23, 2023, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin submitted a Report and 28 Recommendation (the “Report”) to this Court, recommending that Defendant’s motion for 1 ||summary judgement be granted. (ECF. No. 35). Defendant has not filed an objection to 2 || the Report. 3 DISCUSSION 4 The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and 5 ||recommendation is set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 6 ||U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and 7 recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions 8 the report... to which objection is made,” and may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole 9 ||or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 10 || 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 11 When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo 12 ||review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 13 || F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that “de novo review of a [magistrate judge’s 14 || report and recommendation] is only required when an objection is made”); United States 15 Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 16 636(b)(1)(c) “makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 17 || findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise’’). 18 Here, any objections to the Report were due by February 6, 2023. To date, no 19 || objections have been presented before the Court. Thus, in the absence of any objections, 20 || the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated in the Report, 21 || which are incorporated herein by reference, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, 22 ||(ECF No. 22), is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment reflecting the 23 || foregoing. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||DATED: February 27, 2023 VU 26 JOIN A. HOUSTON 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28