Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05378/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05378-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEYTON SHOTWELL, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

STEVENSON, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-5378 OWW/WMW

ORDER ADOPTING

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 38),

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20

DAYS, DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 43),

AND VACATING ORAL ARGUMENT

SET FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2006

On May 30, 2006, the United States Magistrate Judge filed a

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) that

defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint be granted with leave to amend as to any state law

claims because of plaintiff’s failure to allege compliance with

the requirements of the California Tort Claims Act. No

objections to the recommendation have been filed. 

On July 31, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the

Case 1:04-cv-05378-LJO -WMW Document 44 Filed 08/21/06 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

2

Second Amended Complaint with prejudice because of plaintiff’s

failure to amend as required by the recommendation. Defendants

also move for an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of

$900.00. The motion is noticed for hearing on September 11,

2006. In moving for dismissal, defendants assert that “[a]s

neither party objected to Magistrate Wunderlich’s findings and

recommendation [they] became the order of this court.” 

Defendants cite no authority and none has been found that a

recommendation by a Magistrate Judge to the district court

automatically becomes the order of the district court if no

objections to that recommendation are filed. Given the absence

of such authority, plaintiff cannot have anticipated that a

contention he should have filed an amended complaint in the

absence of an explicit order from the district court requiring

him to do so. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provides in pertinent part

that the district court “shall make a de novo determination of

those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made” and that “[a] judge

of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,

the findings or recommendations made by a particular magistrate

judge.” There is authority that the district court is not

required to conduct any review of a recommendation in the absence

of an objection. See Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219

(D.Ariz.2003). However, the district court retains the

discretion to review the recommendation even if no objection is

filed and even in Schmidt the district court issued an order

Case 1:04-cv-05378-LJO -WMW Document 44 Filed 08/21/06 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

In addition, the Second Amended Complaint alleges a claim 1

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because plaintiff is not complaining of

the conditions of his prison confinement, plaintiff can proceed

with this claim in the absence of compliance with the California

Tort Claims Act. See Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496

(1982). 

3

adopting the recommendation. Defendants’ position would preclude

the exercise of the district court’s discretion. Furthermore, in

the event that the Magistrate Judge recommended final resolution

of an action, an appeal from that recommendation would be

premature in the absence of a final order by the district court 

and direction to enter judgment. See Serine v. Peterson, 989

F.2d 471 (9 Cir.1993). th

Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss is premature and

without merit.1

The recommendation to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint

with leave to amend to allege compliance with the California Tort

Claims Act correctly states the law and the position of the

parties. Therefore, in the absence of any objection, the

recommendation is adopted.

ACCORDINGLY, as set forth above:

1. The Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with leave to

amend. Plaintiff shall file a Third Amended Complaint within 20

days of the filing date of this Order.

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Second Amended Complaint

with prejudice for failure to comply with court order and for an

award of monetary sanctions is denied.

3. Oral argument set for September 11, 2006 is vacated.

Case 1:04-cv-05378-LJO -WMW Document 44 Filed 08/21/06 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

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05378-LJO -WMW Document 44 Filed 08/21/06 Page 4 of 4