Brown v. Gore et al

Filing 71

ORDER adopting in its entirety 70 Report and Recommendation; granting Defendants' 48 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution; denying Plaintiff's 50 Motion to Re-Open Discovery. Court terminates as moot Plaintiff's 55 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 8/31/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT MARK BROWN II,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 14-cv-102-BAS-KSC
ORDER:

v.

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION IN ITS
ENTIRETY;

14
15
16
17

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE;

WILLIAM GORE, Sheriff of San
Diego Country; DEPUTY FULLER;
DEPUTY STEPHENS,

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REOPEN
DISCOVERY; AND

Defendants.

18

(4) TERMINATING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS

19
20
21
22

On January 15, 2014, Plaintiff Robert Mark Brown II, a state prisoner

23

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint asserting civil-rights

24

violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Since that time, the case has largely

25

stalled due to Brown’s request to extend the discovery deadline, and Brown’s release

26

from prison in April 2015. Upon his release from prison, Brown left no forwarding

27

address, effectively blocking Defendants from conducting discovery. Brown was re-

28

incarcerated on October 1, 2015. On December 24, 2015, Defendants filed a motion
–1–

14cv102

1

to dismiss for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 48.)

2

On July 20, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford issued a

3

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 70), recommending that this Court

4

grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, deny Plaintiff’s motion

5

to re-open discovery (ECF No. 50), and deny as moot Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.

6

(ECF No. 55). The deadline for filing objections to the R&R was August 3, 2016.

7

Four weeks have passed since the August 3 deadline and neither party has filed

8

objections.

9

I.

DISCUSSION

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

statute makes it clear,” however, “that the district judge must review the magistrate

14

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

15

otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

16

banc) (emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

17

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district

18

court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the

19

Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and

20

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328

21

F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this district.

22

See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo

23

review of a[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”);

24

Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting

25

report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the

26

report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d

27

1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

28

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was August 3, 2016. However,
–2–

14cv102

1

no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do

2

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

3

Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the

4

briefing related to Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and the

5

magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Crawford’s reasoning and

6

conclusions are sound. Therefore, the Court approves and ADOPTS IN ITS

7

ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

8

II.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

9

Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS

10

IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 70), GRANTS Defendants’ motion to

11

dismiss for lack of prosecution (ECF No. 48), DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to re-open

12

discovery (ECF No. 50), and TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for

13

sanctions (ECF No. 55).

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

DATED: August 31, 2016

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–

14cv102