Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00236/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00236-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Robert Skinner, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Tel-Drug Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-00236-TUC-JGZ (BGM)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald’s Report and 

Recommendation (R&R) recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted. 

(Doc. 27.) Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation to which 

Defendant has replied. (Docs. 28, 29.) After considering the Report and Recommendation 

and the arguments raised in Plaintiff's Objection, the Court will overrule the objection 

and adopt Judge Macdonald’s Report and Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this Court 

“shall 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1)(c); see also 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley 

Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate 

Judge's recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the 

Case 4:16-cv-00236-JGZ-BGM Document 30 Filed 03/22/17 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

Magistrate Judge's factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on 

the applicable law. Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing 

Campbell v. United States Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)). 

DISCUSSION1

 Plaintiff presents three objections to the R&R. First, Plaintiff contends that the 

R&R improperly recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s entire case, despite the fact that 

Defendant only moved for dismissal of counts 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint. The R&R does recommend granting Defendant’s R&R. However, 

the Motion to Dismiss was a partial motion and the R&R clearly states in its Conclusion 

that “Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for breach of contract (count one), negligence per 

se (count three), or invasion of privacy (counts four and five). These claims should be 

dismissed without further leave to amend.” (Doc. 27, pg. 10.) Accordingly, this 

objection is without merit. 

 Second, Plaintiff objects to the R&R for the reasons stated in Plaintiff’s “briefing 

and oral arguments in this case.” (Doc. 28, pg. 2.) The Court has reviewed the record in 

this matter and concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is well-reasoned and that 

Plaintiff’s arguments do not undermine the analysis and proper conclusion reached by the 

Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this objection is overruled. 

 Plaintiff’s third “objection” is actually a request for leave of Court to file a Third 

Amended Complaint in order to add a negligence per se claim based on an alleged 

violation of A.R.S. § 12-2292. (Doc. 28, pgs. 2-7.) This issue was not fairly presented to 

the Magistrate Judge in the briefing of the Motion to Dismiss. Count 3 of Plaintiff’s 

Second Amended Complaint is captioned “Third Cause of Action: Negligence Per Se, 

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [HIPAA]).” (Doc. 14, pg. 10.) In 

the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argued that negligence per se liability cannot be based 

on the defendant’s alleged violation of HIPAA. Plaintiff’s response to the Motion to 

 

1

 The factual and procedural history of this case are set forth in the Magistrate 

Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 27.) 

Case 4:16-cv-00236-JGZ-BGM Document 30 Filed 03/22/17 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

Dismiss included a passing reference to A.R.S. § 12-2292; Plaintiff argued that Plaintiff 

should be allowed to prove Defendant’s violation of the standard of duty through HIPAA 

because HIPAA and A.R.S. § 12-2292 construed together established an expectation that 

the duty of care includes a duty not to disclose medical records. It appears from the 

record that, at the argument on the pending Motion, Plaintiff made an oral motion to 

amend his complaint to include a negligence per se claim based on an alleged violation of 

A.R.S. § 12-2292. But the parties have not briefed the issue of whether A.R.S. § 12-2292 

can be the basis for a negligence per se claim under Arizona law. Although the 

Magistrate Judge noted that A.R.S. § 12-2292 did not appear to create a private right of 

action, the issue of whether Plaintiff could state a claim for negligence per se based on 

A.R.S. § 12-2292 was not before the Magistrate Judge and the R&R did not resolve that 

issue. The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s negligence per se claim 

(Count 3) be dismissed without leave to amend only applies to Plaintiff’s negligence per 

se claim arising under HIPAA, as alleged in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. 

 An Objection to an R&R is not the appropriate vehicle for seeking leave to amend. 

The Court declines to consider Plaintiff’s request, but its dismissal of Counts 1, 3, 4 and 5 

of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not preclude Plaintiff from filing a 

motion to amend his Second Amended Complaint in order to allege a claim for 

negligence per se arising under A.R.S. § 12-2292. The Court takes no position regarding 

the legal viability of such a claim. 

CONCLUSION 

 THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Macdonald (Doc. 27) is 

APPROVED AND ADOPTED; 

2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is GRANTED; 

3. Plaintiff’s Objection to the R&R (Doc. 28) is OVERRULED; 

4. Counts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint are DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. 

Case 4:16-cv-00236-JGZ-BGM Document 30 Filed 03/22/17 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

5. The matter remains referred to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for all pretrial 

proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LR Civ. 72.1 and 72.2. 

 Dated this 22nd day of March, 2017. 

Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-00236-JGZ-BGM Document 30 Filed 03/22/17 Page 4 of 4