Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00550/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00550-1/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

 The proper spelling of Defendant’s name is Branham.

- 1 - 04CV550 WQH (WMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 04CV550 WQH (WMC)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

vs. RECOMMENDATION

BRANHAMWD1

 and GUTHRIE,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William

McCurine, Jr. recommending that the court Grant in part and Deny in part Defendants' Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 41). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge

recommends Granting the Motion to Dismiss with respect to Plaintiff's equal protection claim, and

Denying the Motion to Dismiss with respect to Plaintiff's claims for retaliation and negligence. The

Report and Recommendation also recommends denying Defendants' motion for qualified immunity.

Neither party filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, a district court judge, "may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

Case 3:04-cv-00550-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 05/25/07 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 - 04CV550 WQH (WMC)

judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006).

Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make

a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to which objection

is made." 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). However, after

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), a district court is not

obligated to review de novo a Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects.

In Thomas v. Arn, the United States Supreme Court held that a circuit court of appeal may

establish rules regarding a district court's review of a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation

to which neither party has objected. 474 U.S. at 152. At the time of Thomas, the First, Second,

Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeal had rules which obviated de novo review and waived

the appellate rights of parties who did not object to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 147 n. 4. As of 1985, however, the Ninth Circuit did not have such a rule. See

Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983) ("a failure to file objections

only relieves the trial court of its burden to give de novo review to factual findings; conclusions of law

must still be reviewed de novo."). However, in Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court

of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit cited the purposes of the Federal Magistrates Act, and in particular the

importance of conserving time and judicial resources, and held that a district judge is required to

perform de novo review of a Report and Recommendation's factual and legal conclusions only when

a party objects to the Report and Recommendation. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Wang

v. Masitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005). Ninth Circuit District Courts have since ruled

that a district court may adopt a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation without review when

neither party objects to a Report and Recommendation. See Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d

1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) ("[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's report and

recommendation unless objections are filed."); Or. Natural Desert Assoc. v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp.

2d 1202, 1204 (D. Or. 2006) ("[T]he court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other

standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the [Report

and Recommendation] to which no objections are addressed."); Mares v. Schriro, No. CV 05 946 PHX

JAT GEE, 2006 WL 898164, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 6, 2006) ("[C]onsistent with Reyna-Tapia and

Case 3:04-cv-00550-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 05/25/07 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 - 04CV550 WQH (WMC)

Schmidt, this Court has not conducted any review because no objections were filed."); U.S. v.

Depaz-Ortiz, No. 2:05-CR-391-BES-RJJ, 2006 WL 763660, at *1 (D. Nev. March 20, 2006)

(accepting the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation without review because no objections

were filed). While a district court is relieved of its obligation to review de novo a Report and

Recommendation to which neither party has objected, a district court may nevertheless, "accept, reject,

or modify" the findings of a magistrate judge. Or. Natural Desert Association, 451 F. Supp. 2d. at

1205.

CONCLUSION & ORDER 

Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in this case.

Accordingly, and after reviewing the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, the Court adopts the

Report and Recommendation. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety

and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Equal Protection claim is granted, Defendants' Motion

to Dismiss Plaintiff's retaliation and negligence claims is denied, and Defendants' motion for qualified

immunity is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 25, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00550-WQH-WMC Document 47 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 3