Singleton v. Kernan et al
Filing
71
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 38 Motion to Supplement filed by Kelvin X. Singleton. Court adopts 68 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff's 38 Motion to Supplement the First Amended Complaint is denied. Court's denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff pursing his new claims in an appropriate venue. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 9/28/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KELVIN X. SINGLETON,
Plaintiff,
12
13
Case No. 16-cv-02462-BAS-NLS
ORDER:
v.
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION IN ITS
ENTIRETY [ECF No. 68], AND
14
15
16
SCOTT KERNAN, et al.
(2) DENYING MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF
No. 38]
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff Kelvin X. Singleton (“Plaintiff”) is incarcerated at the California State
21
Prison, Sacramento (“CALSAC”), located in Represa, California. Proceeding pro
22
se, Plaintiff filed a civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning
23
retaliation against him when he was incarcerated at the R.J. Donovan Correctional
24
Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff subsequently
25
requested leave to amend his complaint twice, which was granted. (ECF Nos. 8, 27,
26
29, 31.) Plaintiff subsequently filed his First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) on
27
May 19, 2017. (ECF No. 32.) On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion
28
to supplement his FAC to add new defendants at CALSAC and allegations
–1–
16cv2462
1
concerning their conduct. (ECF No. 38.) This Court referred Plaintiff’s ex parte
2
motion to supplement the FAC to Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes. Defendants
3
have opposed Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 43), and Plaintiff submitted a reply in
4
support of his request (ECF No. 49).
5
On September 12, 2017, Judge Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation
6
(“R&R”), which recommended that Plaintiff’s request for leave to supplement the
7
FAC be denied without prejudice to Plaintiff filing claims concerning his new
8
allegations in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
9
(ECF No. 68.) The deadline for any party to submit written objections to the R&R
10
was September 27, 2017 (id.); no party has submitted any objections.
11
I.
ANALYSIS
12
The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are
13
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
14
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. “The
15
statute makes it clear,” however, “that the district judge must review the magistrate
16
judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not
17
otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
18
banc) (emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
19
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district
20
court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the
21
Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and
22
recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328
23
F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this district.
24
See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo
25
review of a[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”);
26
Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting
27
report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the
28
report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d
–2–
16cv2462
1
1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
2
In this case, the deadline for filing objections was September 27, 2017. (ECF
3
No. 68.) However, no objections have been filed, and no party has requested
4
additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis
5
alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
6
Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the parties’ motions and
7
the magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Stormes’ reasoning is
8
sound. The R&R is thorough, well-reasoned, and correctly concludes that Plaintiff’s
9
request for leave to supplement the FAC should be denied due to the futility of such
10
amendment. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to allege any plausible causal connection
11
between the new CALSAC defendants he seeks to add and the retaliation claims
12
against the existing RJD defendants that form the basis of this case. (ECF No. 68.)
13
Moreover, the Court agrees that permitting amendment or a supplement to the FAC
14
to join additional defendants from another prison in another judicial district on
15
unrelated claims would not serve judicial economy. (Id.) Therefore, the Court
16
hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. §
17
636(b)(1).
18
II.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
19
Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS
20
IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. (ECF No. 68). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
21
supplement the FAC in this case is DENIED. The Court’s denial is without prejudice
22
to Plaintiff pursuing his new claims in an appropriate venue.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
DATED: September 28, 2017
26
27
28
–3–
16cv2462
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?