Sukumaran v. U.S. DHS/ICE-El Centro et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting with prejudice Defendant Herman Auhl's 11 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Court approves and adopts in its entirety 27 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 5/15/2015. (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

SUKUMARAN MUTHU
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 14-cv-00967-BAS(JMA)
ORDER:
(1)

APPROVING AND
ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION IN ITS
ENTIRETY; AND

(2)

GRANTING DEFENDANT
AUHL’S MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

v.
U.S. DHS/ICE-EL CENTRO, ET
AL.
Defendants.

(ECF Nos. 11, 27)

18
19

On April 17, 2014, plaintiff Sukumaran Muthu (“Plaintiff”), formerly an

20

immigration detainee at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”)

21

Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s (“ICE”) Processing Center in El Centro,

22

California, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights

23

action which the Court previously construed as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown

24

Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On March

25

5, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued a Report and

26

Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant the motion to

27

dismiss filed by Defendant Herman Auhl (“Auhl”) (ECF No. 11) with prejudice.

28

The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on March 27, 2015. (R&R at p.
–1–

14cv967

1

8:3-6.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

2

I.

ANALYSIS

3

The court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are

4

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

5

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he

6

statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

7

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”

8

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

9

(emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226

10

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

11

had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report).

12

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

13

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

14

F.3d at 1121. This rule of law is well-established within the Ninth Circuit and this

15

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

16

course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to

17

the R & R.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005)

18

(Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party

19

filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v.

20

Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

“Neither the

21

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was March 27, 2015. However,

22

over a month has passed since the deadline lapsed and no objections have been

23

filed.

24

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

25

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

26

related to Auhl’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the

27

R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Adler’s reasoning is sound and accurate in

28

concluding that Auhl’s motion to dismiss should be granted with prejudice. (See

Moreover, Plaintiff has not requested additional time to file objections.

–2–

14cv967

1

R&R at p. 7.) Therefore, the Court hereby APPROVES AND ADOPTS IN ITS

2

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

3

II.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

4

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

5

APPROVES AND ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 27), and

6

GRANTS Auhl’s motion to dismiss WITH PREJUDICE (ECF No. 11).

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: May 15, 2015

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–

14cv967