Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00583/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00583-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201ij Injunction

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANH VAN THAI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 15cv0583-WQHNLS

vs. ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Social Security Administration; SSA

AGENT NICK; SSA-AGENT 2,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 76) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Nita Stormes.

I. Background

On March 14, 2015, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a lawsuit in this

Court. (ECF No. 1). On May 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. 

(ECF No. 15). On December 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. 

(ECF No. 63). On January 29, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second

amended complaint, which remains pending. 

On March 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to expedite discovery to

allow early and immediate discovery of the real names and locations of the currently

- 1 - 15cv0583-WQH-NLS

Case 3:15-cv-00583-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/19/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

unknown defendants. (ECF No. 73). On March 14, 2016 Defendants filed an

opposition opposing the request for expedited discovery but not opposing the

alternative request for extension of the service date. (ECF No. 75). On March 15,

2016, Magistrate Judge Nita Stormes issued the Report and Recommendation. (ECF

No. 76). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny without prejudice

Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for expedite discovery; not dismiss any of the Defendants

for failure to be served within the applicable service period; and extend the time to

serve any operative complaint to 60 days form the date an order on the motion to

dismiss issues. The docket reflects that no objections have been filed. 

II. Discussion

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a

Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416

F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act]

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the

parties themselves accept as correct.”).

Plaintiff does not object the Report and Recommendation. The Court has

reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the

parties. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that

Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for expedited discovery be denied. The Report and

Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. 

/ / /

- 2 - 15cv0583-WQH-NLS

Case 3:15-cv-00583-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/19/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 76)

is adopted in its entirety. The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion

for expedited discovery. The Court does not dismiss any of the Defendants for failure

to be served within the applicable service period. The Court extends the time to serve

the operative complaint to sixty (60) days from the date an order on the motion to

dismiss (ECF No. 69) issues. 

DATED: April 18, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 15cv0583-WQH-NLS

Case 3:15-cv-00583-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3