Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00957/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00957-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv0957

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON D. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv0957-LAB (WMC)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS

vs. 

V. M. ALMAGER, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of both his Constitutional rights and his

rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Defendants filed a motion to

dismiss, which was referred to Magistrate Judge William McCurine for report and

recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3.

Judge McCurine issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”) on March 14, 2008,

recommending the Court grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss, and grant

Defendants’ requests for judicial notice. Although the R&R gave the parties ample time in

which to file objections, neither party did so.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation concerning a dispositive pretrial motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district

judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record,

or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which

Case 3:07-cv-00957-MMA-WMC Document 28 Filed 06/30/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv0957

specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule.” Id.; see also 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). Thus, this Court must review those parts of the report and recommendation

to which a party has filed a written objection. 

Section 636(b)(1) does not, however, require some lesser review by the district court

when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The Ninth

Circuit has interpreted the language of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and determined that the

“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it to be correct, except with respect to the

standard for granting a motion to dismiss. The R&R cites Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

45–46 (1957) for the principle that “A claim can be dismissed only if it ‘appears beyond doubt

that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to

relief.’” The Supreme Court recently repudiated this standard in Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, ___ U.S. ____, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007). Under the holding that opinion,

“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

Id. at 1959. Under this new standard, however, the R&R’s analysis remains the same.

With this correction, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. Defendants’ requests for judicial

notice are GRANTED as set forth in the R&R. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

1) To the extent Defendants’ motion to dismiss seeks dismissal of

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief under the ADA, the motion is

DENIED.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-00957-MMA-WMC Document 28 Filed 06/30/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv0957

2) Plaintiff’s ADA claims against the Defendants in their individual

capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, but in all other

respects Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claims is

DENIED. 

3) To the extent Defendants’ motion to dismiss seeks dismissal of the

complaint on the ground of claim or issue preclusion, the motion is

DENIED.

4) Plaintiff’s equal protection claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.

If Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to state a claim for violation of his equal protection

rights, he may do so no later than 30 calendar days from the date this order is issued. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 30, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00957-MMA-WMC Document 28 Filed 06/30/08 Page 3 of 3