Douglas v. Smelosky et al
Filing
71
ORDER: (1) Adopting 70 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying In Part and Granting In Part 66 Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Resetting Pretrial Dates and Deadlines. Magistrate Judge Skomal is directed to set a mandatory settlement confe rence at the earliest opportunity. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/10/2014. Final Pretrial Conference reset for 10/17/2014 01:30 PM in Courtroom 2D before Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 7/15/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT DOUGLAS,
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
14
15
MICHAEL SMELOSKY, Warden, et
al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:10-cv-1464-GPC-BGS
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, (ECF NO.
70);
(2) DENYING IN PART AND
GRANTING IN PART MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
(ECF NO. 66);
(3) RESETTING PRETRIAL
DATES AND DEADLINES
19
20
On August 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
21
alleging Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel
22
and unusual punishment when Plaintiff was forced to stand bare-chested against a hot
23
wall and then locked in a hot, unventilated van. (ECF No. 1.) The case was assigned
24
to Magistrate Judge Skomal for disposition on report and recommendation.
25
Only Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Valenzuela in his individual capacity
26
remains. (See ECF No. 18.) On January 30, 2014, Valenzuela filed a motion for
27
summary judgment, (ECF No. 66), which Plaintiff opposed on March 28, 2014, (ECF
28
No. 69).
3:10-cv-1464-GPC-BGS
1
On June 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge Skomal issued a report and recommendation
2
(“Report”), recommending that Valenzuela’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied
3
in part and granted in part—denied as to Plaintiff’s claim that he was locked in a hot,
4
unventilated van and granted as to Plaintiff’s claim that he was forced to stand bare-
5
chested against a hot wall. (ECF No. 70.) Magistrate Judge Skomal set a deadline of
6
July 7, 2014, to file any objections to the Report. To date, the Court has received no
7
objections to the Report.
8
A district judge’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and
9
recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, a district
10
judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which
11
objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
12
or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” When no objections are filed,
13
the Court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s findings of fact and
14
decide the motion on the applicable law. Campbell v. United States Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d
15
196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974); Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1217 (S.D. Cal.
16
2001). Under such circumstances, the Ninth Circuit has held that “a failure to file
17
objections only relieves the trial court of its burden to give de novo review to factual
18
findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo.” Barilla v. Ervin, 886
19
F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708
20
F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)).
21
Because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court assumes the
22
correctness of Magistrate Judge Skomal’s factual findings and adopts them in full. The
23
Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Skomal’s legal conclusions
24
and finds the Report provides a cogent analysis of Valenzuela’s Motion for Summary
25
Judgment.
26
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
27
1.
The Report, (ECF No. 70), is ADOPTED in its entirety.
28
2.
Valenzuela’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 66), is DENIED
2
3:10-cv-1464-GPC-BGS
IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.
1
2
3.
conference at the earliest opportunity.
3
4
Magistrate Judge Skomal is directed to set a mandatory settlement
4.
All parties or their counsel shall also fully comply with the pretrial
5
disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) on or
6
before September 19, 2014. Failure to comply with these disclosures
7
requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions
8
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37;
9
5.
The parties or their counsel shall meet together and take the action
10
required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) on or before September 26, 2014. At
11
this meeting, the parties or their counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter
12
into stipulations and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable
13
issues. The parties or their counsel shall exchange copies and/or display
14
all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. The exhibits
15
shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). The parties
16
or their counsel shall note any objections they have to any other party’s
17
pretrial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3). The parties and their
18
counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial
19
conference order.
20
arranging these meetings.
21
6.
Counsel for Defendants shall have the duty of
Counsel for Defendants shall be responsible for arranging the meetings
22
and preparing the proposed pretrial order required by Local Rule
23
16.1(f)(6). On or before October 3, 2014, defense counsel must provide
24
Plaintiff or his counsel with the proposed pretrial order for review and
25
approval. Plaintiff or his counsel must communicate promptly with
26
defense counsel concerning any objections to form or content of the
27
proposed order, and both parties shall attempt to promptly resolve their
28
differences, if any, concerning the proposed order.
3
3:10-cv-1464-GPC-BGS
1
7.
The proposed pretrial order, including objections to any other party’s
2
Federal Rule 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures shall be prepared, served, and
3
lodged with the undersigned’s chambers on or before October 10, 2014,
4
and shall be in the form prescribed in, and comply with, Local
5
Rule 16.1(f)(6).
6
8.
The final pretrial conference shall be held before the undersigned on
7
October 17, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. Defense counsel shall be responsible for
8
coordinating Plaintiff’s telephonic appearance at the final pretrial
9
conference.
10
9.
Dates for motions in limine and trial will be set at the final pretrial
11
conference.
12
DATED: July 15, 2014
13
14
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
3:10-cv-1464-GPC-BGS
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?