Gathrite v. Wilson
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending the grant of Defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings regarding the plaintiff's official capacity claims. The court adopted the R&R and granted the motion, dismissing the official capacity claims.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“this Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) submitted by the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), (ECF No. 42)” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), when no objections are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review but may accept, reject, or modify the findings. The court cited *Wang v. Masaitis* and *United States v. Reyna–Tapia* to support the proposition that de novo review is only required upon objection. Since no objections were filed, the court's decision to adopt the R&R is procedurally sound. |
Grant of Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings“Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 37), is hereby GRANTED.” | unclear | agree with court The order grants the motion based on the R&R, which is incorporated by reference. The motion was filed under Rule 12(c) specifically as to the claims against Defendants in their official capacities. While the order does not explicitly state the Rule 12(c) standard (whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted), the legal basis for dismissing official capacity claims in a § 1983 action is well-established (official capacity claims are essentially claims against the entity, and if the entity is not a proper defendant or the claim fails on the merits, it is dismissed). The court's reliance on the R&R for the substantive reasons is appropriate given the procedural posture. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R in the absence of objections, citing binding Ninth Circuit authority (*Wang*, *Reyna–Tapia*) and local district court precedent. The court properly notes that no objections were filed and therefore adopts the R&R. The substantive ruling (granting the motion) is based on the R&R, which is incorporated by reference. While the order does not explicitly restate the Rule 12(c) standard, this is not an error given the incorporation of the R&R and the procedural nature of the order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEANGELO LAMAR GATHRITE, Case No.: 3:19-cv-01852-JAH-NLS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 14 HEATHER WILSON, et al., MOTION FOR PARTIAL 15 Defendants. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 16 [ECF NOS. 37 & 42] 17 18 For the reasons set for below, this Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation 19 (“R&R”) submitted by the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), (ECF No. 20 42), and Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 37), is hereby 21 GRANTED. 22 On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff DeAngelo Lamar Gathrite (“Plaintiff”), a state 23 prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) under 42 U.S.C. § 24 1983, alleging his rights under the United States Constitution were violated at the Richard 25 J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) by Dr. Heather Wilson and Officers Trejo and 26 Salinas (“Defendants”). Plaintiff pleads all counts against Defendants in both their official 27 and individual capacities. Plaintiff’s factual allegations center around an incident where 28 he claims that Defendants impermissibly confined him in a shower which strongly smelled 1 of urine and feces for over four hours without cause. 2 On October 11, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion for partial judgment on 3 the pleadings (“Motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) as to the claims 4 against Defendants in their official capacities. (ECF No. 37). On October 31, 2022, 5 Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion. (ECF No. 39). On November 15, 2022, 6 Defendants replied. (ECF No. 40). 7 On March 29, 2023, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes submitted the R&R to this 8 Court recommending that Defendants’ Motion be granted. (ECF No. 42). 9 DISCUSSION 10 The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and 11 recommendation is set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 12 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and 13 recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions 14 of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole 15 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 16 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 17 When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo 18 review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 19 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that “de novo review of a [magistrate judge’s 20 report and recommendation] is only required when an objection is made”); United States 21 v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 22 636(b)(1)(c) “makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 23 findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”). This rule 24 of law is well established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Hasan v. Cates, No. 25 11–cv–1416, 2011 WL 2470495 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2011) (Whelan, T.) (adopting in its 26 entirety, and without review, a report and recommendation because neither party filed 27 objections to the report despite having the opportunity to do so); accord Ziemann v. Cash, 28 No. 11–cv–2496, 2012 WL 5954657 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012) (Benitez, R.); Rinaldi v. 1 || Poulos, No. 08—cv—1637, 2010 WL 4117471 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2010) (Lorenz, J.). 2 Here, any objections to the R&R were due by April 12, 2023. (ECF No. 42). To 3 no objections have been filed. Thus, in the absence of any objections, the Court 4 ||ADOPTS the R&R and Defendants’ Motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is 5 ||GRANTED. 6 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 7 For the reasons stated in the R&R, which are incorporated herein by reference, 8 || Defendants’ Motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 37), is GRANTED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 |} DATED: May 5, 2023 11 B JOHN A. HOUSTON INITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28