Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01044/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01044-2/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv1044-WQH-PCL

ORDER

v.

J. BEARD, et al.,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

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

(ECF No. 40) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis. 

I. Background

On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff Tony Roberts (Plaintiff), a state prisoner proceeding

pro se, initiated this action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Defendants A. Buenrostro, R. Davis, C. Meza, A. Parker, R. Santiago, K. Seibel, and

R. Solis (collectively, Defendants).1

 (ECF No. 1, 2). The Complaint alleges that

Defendants violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to file grievances and Eighth

Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

On January 11, 2016, Defendant Buenrostro filed a motion to dismiss for failure

1

 Plaintiff’s Complaint also named Defendants J. Beard, D. Paramo, S. Sanchez,

L. Ciborowski, and D. Arguilez (ECF No. 1) but these defendants have not filed a

response to the Plaintiff’s Complaint and did not join in the motion for summary

judgment and motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 27, 38). The Court denied Plaintiff’s

motion for default judgment against these five defendants on February 11, 2016 because

Plaintiff had not shown they had been duly served. (ECF No. 31 at 3). 

- 1 - 15cv1044-WQH-PCL

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 46 Filed 09/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

to state a claim for relief and a motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds

(ECF No. 27). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendant Buenrostro’s

motions on February 5, 2016. (ECF No. 28). On March 16, 2016, Defendants R.

Santiago, C. Meza, A. Parker, R. Davis, R. Solis, and K. Seibel joined Defendant

Buenrostro and filed a joint motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. (ECF

No. 38). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on April 8, 2016. (ECF No. 40). 

On June 16, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation,

recommending that the Court deny the motion for summary judgment and grant in part

and deny in part the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 40). The Court recommended that

the motion for summary judgment be denied on procedural grounds. Id. at 4. The

Report and Recommendation states “The proper procedural mechanism for evaluating

the exhaustion issue in this case would be on a post-answer motion for summary

judgment so that Plaintiff can be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery and put

forth his own outside evidence regarding the exhaustion issue.” Id. 

The Court recommended that the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

with regard to the First Amendment claims be denied. Id. at 6. The Report and

Recommendation concludes that Plaintiff stated First Amendment claims in his

allegationsthat Defendantslabeled Plaintiff a “snitch” in the presence of other inmates,

“sexually molested him in retaliation for prior First Amendment-protected conduct”,

or “terrorized” Plaintiff after Plaintiff wrote to the class monitors of the mental health

delivery system.” Id. The Report and Recommendation also rejects Defendants’

argument that the favorable termination doctrine bars Plaintiff’s retaliation claim with

respect to Defendant Buenrostro. Id. at 6 n.1. 

The Court recommended that the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

with regard to the Eighth Amendment claim be granted for all but Defendant

Buenrostro. Id. at 6. The Report and Recommendation states, “The Court fails to see

any other proper Eighth Amendment claims in the Complaint other than the one stated

against Defendant Buenrostro for molestation.” Id. 

- 2 - 15cv1044-WQH-PCL

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 46 Filed 09/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

The Court granted Plaintiff one extension of time to file objections to the Report

and Recommendation. (ECF No. 45). The final Order issued by the Court stated that

“Plaintiff shall file any objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before

August 29, 2016. Defendants shall file any reply on or before September 12, 2016.” 

Id. 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.").

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 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied and that the

motion to dismiss be denied in part and granted in part. The Report and

Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

40) is ADOPTED in its entirety, (2) the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27,

38) is DENIED, (3) the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim as to

Defendant Buenrostro (ECF No. 27, 38) is DENIED, (4) the motion to dismiss

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims as to all other served Defendants (ECF No. 27,

- 3 - 15cv1044-WQH-PCL

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 46 Filed 09/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

38) is GRANTED, and (5) the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims

as to all served Defendants (ECF No. 27, 38) is DENIED. 

DATED: September 15, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 15cv1044-WQH-PCL

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 46 Filed 09/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4