Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01633/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01633-2/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 – 16cv1633

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

MORIANO MILLARE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD

ORDER:

(1)APPROVING AND 

ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY (ECF No. 30); AND

(2)GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS R. OLSEN, F. 

FERNANDEZ, H. ASBURY, G. 

STRATTON, G. CHARLTON, 

T. VASQUEZ, C. MOORE, B. 

SELF, B. BAENZIGER, R. 

OLIVARRIA, K.A. SEIBEL, V. 

SOSA, AND O. SHELLAND’S

MOTION TO DISMISS 

(ECF Nos. 16, 21)

v.

G. STRATTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Moriano Millare is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis. He asserts various claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 and California state law 

against numerous corrections officials. On December 19, 2016, Defendants R. Olsen, 

F. Fernandez, H. Asbury, G. Stratton, G. Charlton, T. Vasquez, C. Moore, B. Self, B. 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 37 Filed 04/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 16cv1633

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

Baenziger, R. Olivarria, K.A. Seibel, and V. Sosa moved to dismiss counts ten 

through fifteen of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) Defendant O. Shelland later

joined in the motion to dismiss as to those claims that are also alleged against him—

counts twelve through fifteen. (ECF No. 21.)

On February 28, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin 

issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court grant in part 

and deny in part the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 30.) Specifically, the R&R first 

recommends the Court deny Defendants R. Olsen, R. Olivarria, B. Baenziger, B. Self, 

and V. Sosa’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s tenth count for First Amendment 

retaliation. (Id. 24:9–11.) Second, the R&R similarly recommends the Court deny 

Defendants K.A. Seibel and G. Stratton’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s eleventh count 

for First Amendment retaliation. (Id. 24:12–14.) Third, the R&R recommends the 

Court grant the thirteen Defendants’ request to dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s 

twelfth count for violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. 24:15–16.) Fourth, the 

R&R recommends the Court grant the thirteen Defendants’ request to dismiss with 

prejudice Plaintiff’s thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth counts for violation of state 

law. (Id. 24:17–19.) 

The magistrate judge ordered that any objections to the R&R be filed no later 

than March 22, 2017, and that any replies to the objections be filed no later than 

March 29, 2017. (R&R 24:22–25.) To date, the parties have not filed any objections 

or requests for additional time to do so. 

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are 

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But 

“[t]he 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. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see 

also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 37 Filed 04/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 16cv1633

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

that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the 

magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district 

judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves 

accept as correct.” Id. “When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived.” 

Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 

2010) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither 

party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so).

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was March 22, 2017. However,

the parties have not filed any objections or requests for additional time to do so. 

Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 

328 F.3d at 1121. Having nonetheless reviewed the R&R, the Court agrees with the 

R&R’s recommendations. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS

the R&R in its entirety (ECF No. 30). The Court therefore GRANTS IN PART and 

DENIES IN PART Defendants R. Olsen, F. Fernandez, H. Asbury, G. Stratton, G. 

Charlton, T. Vasquez, C. Moore, B. Self, B. Baenziger, R. Olivarria, K.A. Seibel, 

and V. Sosa’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16), which has been joined by Defendant 

O. Shelland (ECF No. 21), as follows:

(1) The Court DENIES Defendants R. Olsen, R. Olivarria, B. Baenziger, 

B. Self, and V. Sosa’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s tenth count for First Amendment 

retaliation.

(2) The Court DENIES Defendants K.A. Seibel and G. Stratton’s request 

to dismiss Plaintiff’s eleventh count for First Amendment retaliation.

(3) The Court GRANTS Defendants R. Olsen, F. Fernandez, H. Asbury, G. 

Stratton, G. Charlton, T. Vasquez, C. Moore, B. Self, B. Baenziger, R. Olivarria, 

K.A. Seibel, V. Sosa, and O. Shelland’s request to dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s 

twelfth count for violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s 

twelfth count against these Defendants without leave to amend. 

//

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 37 Filed 04/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 16cv1633

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

(4) The Court GRANTS Defendants R. Olsen, F. Fernandez, H. Asbury, G. 

Stratton, G. Charlton, T. Vasquez, C. Moore, B. Self, B. Baenziger, R. Olivarria, 

K.A. Seibel, V. Sosa, and O. Shelland’s request to dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s 

thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth counts for violation of state law. The Court 

dismisses Plaintiff’s thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth counts against these 

Defendants without leave to amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 5, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 37 Filed 04/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4