Jones v. Kroll et al
Filing
37
ORDER Adopting 28 Report and Recommendation; Order Granting 22 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; Order Vacating Pretrial Conference; and Order of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 2/6/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ELVIS JONES,
Case No.: 16cv2370-LAB (JLB)
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION;
DR. KROLL, et al.,
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
Defendants.
15
16
ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE; AND
17
18
19
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
20
21
Plaintiff Elvis Jones, a prisoner in state custody, brought claims against
22
several Defendants under 28 U.S.C. ' 1983.
23
Magistrate Judge Jill Burkhardt for a report and recommendation. Claims against
24
Dr. Krall (erroneously sued as Dr. Kroll) were dismissed, leaving Dr. Daub as the
25
only Defendant. On July 6, 2018, Dr. Daub moved for summary judgment. After
26
receiving
27
recommendation (the “R&R”) on October 19, 2018, recommending that the motion
28
be granted and Jones’ claims dismissed.
briefing,
Judge
Burkhardt
issued
The matter was referred to
her
14-page
report
and
1
16cv2370-LAB (JLB)
1
The R&R gave the parties until November 2 to file objections, and until
2
November 16 to file a reply to any objections that were filed. Jones moved for an
3
extension of time to file objections, which the Court granted. He filed a second
4
motion for extension of time, which the Court also granted. But before he received
5
the Court’s order granting a second extension, he filed his third motion for an
6
extension of time (Docket no. 34) on December 6.
7
On December 11, the Court ordered that a copy of the R&R be mailed to
8
him, granted him a generous additional extension until January 24, 2019, which
9
was longer than he requested. The order warned him that only extraordinary
10
circumstances would justify any more extensions. It also pointed out that any
11
objections he might want to make to this R&R were very likely based on facts he
12
knew about, rather than legal standards or legal authorities he might have to spend
13
a great deal of time researching.
14
Jones filed no objections to the R&R, even after having been given ample
15
time and opportunity to do so. A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate
16
Judge's report and recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
17
“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
18
disposition that has been properly objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may
19
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
20
made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This section does not
21
require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed.
22
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the
23
district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations
24
de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia,
25
328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).
26
The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. Dr.
27
Daub’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and all claims against him are
28
DISMISSED. Because this disposes of all pending claims, the action as a whole
2
16cv2370-LAB (JLB)
1
is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and
2
against Plaintiff, and to close the docket.
3
The pretrial conference currently on calendar for Monday, February 11, 2019
4
at 12:00 noon is VACATED. All other pending dates are VACATED and all
5
pending motions and requests are DENIED AS MOOT.
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2019
9
10
11
Hon. Larry Alan Burns
Chief United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16cv2370-LAB (JLB)
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?