Quinn v. Singh et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and granting in part Motions to Dismiss. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Rodriguez and Smith (doc. no. 18) is granted. Plaintiff's claims for damages against Defendants Rodriguez and Smith in th eir official capacities are dismissed with prejudice. In other respects, his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims are dismissed with leave to amend. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Singh (doc. no. 37) is granted with leave to amend to the extent Plaintiff claims violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. In all other respects, her motion is denied. No later than October 5, 2012, Plaintiff must file and serve either an amended complaint, or a notice of election not to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 9/5/2012.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(aef)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY WAYNE QUINN,

12

Case No. 11cv1085 DMS (JMA)
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS TO
DISMISS

vs.
13
14

D. SINGH, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff Gregory Wayne Quinn, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging violation of his constitutional rights. He claims three prison

19

officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to the threats to his

20

safety.

21

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for a report and

22

recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3.

23

Initially, Defendants F. Rodriguez and B. Smith filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of

24

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Subsequently, Defendant D. Singh, represented by separate counsel, also

25

filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

26

Recommendation, recommending to grant the motions in part. Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

27

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a dispositive

28

matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes.

On July 27, 2012 the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

-1-

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The court shall make a de novo determination of

2

those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C.

3

§ 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not

4

require review by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50

5

(1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings

6

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

7

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in the original)..

8
9

In the absence of objections, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. For the
reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, it is ORDERED as follows:

10

1. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Rodriguez and Smith (doc. no. 18) is

11

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims for damages against Defendants Rodriguez and Smith in their official

12

capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In other respects, his Eighth and Fourteenth

13

Amendment claims are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

14

2. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Singh (doc. no. 37) is GRANTED WITH

15

LEAVE TO AMEND to the extent Plaintiff claims violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.

16

In all other respects, her motion is DENIED.

17

3. No later than October 5, 2012, Plaintiff must file and serve either an amended complaint,

18

or a notice of election not to file an amended complaint and stand on the complaint as presently

19

alleged.

20
21
22

4. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Defendants’ response must be filed and served
within the time set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

DATED: September 5, 2012

25
26

HON. DANA M. SABRAW
United States District Judge

27
28
-2-