Van Nort v. Brown et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 25 , granting in part and denying in part defendants' 8 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 9/1/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES VAN NORT,

CASE NO. 14cv1663-LAB (KSC)
Plaintiff,

12
vs.
13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION RE
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. Et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
17

Magistrate Judge Crawford issued a report and recommendation (the "R&R"),

18

recommending Defendants' motion to dismiss be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

19

(Docket no. 25.) Objections to the R&R were due on August 24, 2014, but none have been

20

received or filed.

21

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

22

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must

23

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

24

objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify,

25

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28

26

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This section does not require some lesser review by the district court

27

when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The statute

28

makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and
-1-

14cv1663

1

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise. United States. v.

2

Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

3

The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and agrees with its rationale and

4

conclusions. The R&R is ADOPTED and Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part

5

and DENIED in part. Van Nort's official capacity claims against Defendants Lozano, Paramo,

6

Suglich, and Zuniga for violation of the Eighth Amendment are DISMISSED WITH

7

PREJUDICE.

8

Paramo, Suglich, and Zuniga for violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act are

9

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. His remaining Eighth Amendment, ADA, and Rehabilitation

10

Act claims against Defendants Lozano, Paramo, Suglich, and Zuniga are DISMISSED

11

WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The motion to dismiss Defendants

12

Lozano, Paramo, Suglich, and Zuniga on qualified immunity grounds is DENIED WITHOUT

13

PREJUDICE.

14
15

His individual or personal capacity claims against Defendants Lozano,

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 1, 2015

16
17

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

14cv1663