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)

Download PDF
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?