Cejas v. Paramo et al

Filing 61

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 54 ) is Adopted in its Entirety. The Motion to Amend (ECF No. 53 ) is Granted. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 05/31/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANDREW CEJAS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11
12
13

ORDER

v.
DANIEL PARAMO; S.
RUTLEDGE; RONALD OLSON;
J. RAMIREZ; JAIME;
STRAYHORN; and ROBERT
BROWN,
Defendants.

14
15

Case No.: 14-cv-1923-WQH-WVG

HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued

16
17

by United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo (ECF No. 54).

18

I.

Background

19

On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff Andrew Cejas initiated this action by filing the

20

Complaint. (ECF No. 1). On March 9, 2018, Cejas filed a Motion for Leave to Amend

21

the Complaint. (ECF No. 53) (the “Motion to Amend”). Defendants did not file a response

22

in opposition to the motion. On April 4, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge William V.

23

Gallo entered a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion to Amend be

24

granted. (ECF No. 54 at 3). The Magistrate Judge stated

25
26
27
28

Here, Plaintiff waited over three and a half years between the filing of
his Complaint and his request to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has
offered no reasoning for such a delay other than claiming he has been on lock
down “for months.” (ECF No. 53.) To call this undue delay would be an
understatement. However, “delay alone cannot justify denial of leave to
amend.” Genentech, Inc., 127 F.R.D. at 530 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
1
14-cv-1923-WQH-WVG

1

When examining the remaining Foman factors, the Court finds that
leave to amend is appropriate. This is Plaintiff’s first request to amend, thus
he has not failed to cure deficiencies in previous amendments. Additionally,
Defendants have failed to show, through their lack of an opposition, that
Plaintiff is moving to amend in bad faith or that Defendants will suffer undue
prejudice by allowing the amendment.
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS the Motion be GRANTED
and Plaintiff be allowed leave to file an amended complaint.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Id. at 2–3. On May 17, 2018, Cejas filed the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 59).
II.

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §
636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The
district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to
which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.
2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to
review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as
correct.”).
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds that the

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Discussion

Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that the Motion to Amend be granted. The
Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.
III.

Conclusion
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 54) is

ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. The Motion to Amend (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED.
Dated: May 31, 2018

27
28
2
14-cv-1923-WQH-WVG