Odigwe v. National Mentor Healthcare LLC et al
Filing
162
* ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bridget Bade. (Doc. 160 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs Objection to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendati on. (Doc. 161 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's motion to rescind consent for a Magistrate Judge to Preside over this case. (Doc. 159 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court forward a copy of this Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See document for full details). Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M. McNamee on 5/1/14. (LAD) * Modified to correct Judge signing Order on 5/2/2014 (LAD).
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
National Mentor Healthcare LLC, et al., )
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Chuks Odigwe,
No. CV-11-2396-PHX-SMM (BSB)
ORDER
15
This case is on appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Ninth Circuit Court
16
of Appeals Docket No. 13-17067.) Plaintiff is appealing judgment in favor of Defendants and
17
terminating his complaint. (Docs. 148, 149.) Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal
18
divests the district court of jurisdiction over the matters appealed. See Gould v. Mut. Life Ins.
19
Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1986). However, an appeal from the merits
20
does not foreclose an award of attorney’s fees by the district court. See Masalosalo by
21
Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983).
22
Subsequent to Magistrate Judge Mark Aspey’s final ruling and Plaintiff’s notice of
23
appeal, Defendants moved for attorney’s fees and expenses. (Doc. 153.) Even though Judge
24
Aspey recognized that recusal will result in a sixth judge being assigned to this matter, Judge
25
Aspey recused himself from further proceedings when, without a factual basis, Plaintiff
26
accused him of misconduct. (Docs. 157, 158.) Magistrate Judge Bridget Bade was assigned
27
to handle the matter. (Doc. 158.) Plaintiff then moved to rescind his consent to magistrate
28
judge jurisdiction. (Doc. 159.)
Pending before the Court is Judge Bade’s Report and Recommendation
1
recommending that Plaintiff’s motion rescinding consent for a Magistrate Judge to preside
2
over this case be denied. (Doc. 160.) Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation.
3
(Doc. 161.) After considering the Report and Recommendation and the arguments raised in
4
Plaintiff’s Objection, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s objection and affirm Judge Bade’s
5
Report and Recommendation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
6
7
When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “shall
8
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”
9
and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
10
made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
11
149-50 (1985); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). To the
12
extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. Fed.
13
R. Civ. P. 72; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are not filed within
14
fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation).
DISCUSSION
15
16
Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Bade’s Report and Recommendation which
17
recommended that Plaintiff’s motion rescinding consent for a Magistrate Judge to preside
18
over this case be denied. (Doc. 161.) Plaintiff’s reasons for rescinding consent focus on his
19
contention that Judge Aspey’s rulings were partial toward the Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff
20
also objected to Judge Voss’s handling of the merits of his complaint again along partiality
21
grounds. (Id.)
22
As previously noted, the merits of Plaintiff’s case will be reviewed and decided by the
23
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The only part of Plaintiff’s case that remains before Judge
24
Bade is Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff seeks to rescind consent for
25
Magistrate Judge Bade to rule on this motion. Judge Bade conducted a thorough review of
26
the matter setting forth the legal standard for vacating consent requiring that Plaintiff
27
establish extraordinary circumstances. See Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993).
28
Judge Bade found that Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the Magistrate Judge’s rulings did not
-2-
1
constitute an extraordinary circumstance and therefore did not rescind his consent.
2
Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the
3
Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge
4
adequately addressed all of Plaintiff’s arguments. Therefore, the Court will approve,
5
incorporate and adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
6
CONCLUSION
7
For the reasons set forth above,
8
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bridget Bade. (Doc. 160.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 161.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s motion to rescind consent for a
Magistrate Judge to Preside over this case. (Doc. 159.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court forward a copy of this Order
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
DATED this 1st day of May, 2014.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?