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)

Download PDF
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?