Nassiri et al v. Colvin et al

Filing 77

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Dkt # 76 ) is adopted in its entirety. The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs' ex parte motion for expedited discovery. The Court does not dismiss any of the Defendants for failure to be served within the applicable service period. The Court extends the time to serve the operative complaint to sixty (60) days from the date an order on the motion to dismiss (Dkt # 69 ) issues. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 4/18/2016. (mdc)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANH VAN THAI, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Social Security Administration; SSA AGENT NICK; SSA-AGENT 2, 13 14 15 16 CASE NO. 15cv0583-WQHNLS ORDER Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation 19 (ECF No. 76) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Nita Stormes. 20 I. Background 21 On March 14, 2015, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a lawsuit in this 22 Court. (ECF No. 1). On May 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. 23 (ECF No. 15). On December 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. 24 (ECF No. 63). On January 29, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second 25 amended complaint, which remains pending. 26 On March 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to expedite discovery to 27 allow early and immediate discovery of the real names and locations of the currently 28 -1- 15cv0583-WQH-NLS 1 unknown defendants. (ECF No. 73). On March 14, 2016 Defendants filed an 2 opposition opposing the request for expedited discovery but not opposing the 3 alternative request for extension of the service date. (ECF No. 75). On March 15, 4 2016, Magistrate Judge Nita Stormes issued the Report and Recommendation. (ECF 5 No. 76). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny without prejudice 6 Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for expedite discovery; not dismiss any of the Defendants 7 for failure to be served within the applicable service period; and extend the time to 8 serve any operative complaint to 60 days form the date an order on the motion to 9 dismiss issues. The docket reflects that no objections have been filed. 10 II. Discussion 11 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation 12 of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 13 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those 14 portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or 15 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 16 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a 17 Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 18 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 19 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] 20 requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 21 parties themselves accept as correct.”). 22 Plaintiff does not object the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 23 reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the 24 parties. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that 25 Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for expedited discovery be denied. The Report and 26 Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. 27 / / / 28 -2- 15cv0583-WQH-NLS 1 III. Conclusion 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 76) 3 is adopted in its entirety. The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion 4 for expedited discovery. The Court does not dismiss any of the Defendants for failure 5 to be served within the applicable service period. The Court extends the time to serve 6 the operative complaint to sixty (60) days from the date an order on the motion to 7 dismiss (ECF No. 69) issues. 8 DATED: April 18, 2016 9 10 WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- 15cv0583-WQH-NLS

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?