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