Hammler v. Hernandez et al

Filing 33

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 32 ] and Granting Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 28 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 7/5/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No.: 18cv259-CAB-MDD Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 32] AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 28] J. HERNANDEZ, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis, filed his complaint on February 2, 2018, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, 19 claiming that two individuals retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment 20 and failed to protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. [Doc. No. 1 at 3-25.] 21 On August 9, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss the failure to protect claim and all 22 claims against both defendants in their official capacities. [Doc. No. 15-1 at 5-7.] On 23 December 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a Report and 24 Recommendation (“Report”) to grant (in part) the motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 21.] On 25 January 9, 2019, this Court issued an order adopting the Report and granting in part the 26 motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 24.] 27 28 On February 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. No. 25.] On March 8, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s failure to 1 18cv259-CAB-MDD 1 protect claim in the FAC. [Doc. No. 28.] On June 3, 2019, Magistrate Judge Dembin 2 issued a Report and Recommendation to grant the motion to dismiss (“Report re FAC”). 3 [Doc. No. 32.] The Report re FAC also ordered that any objection to the Report re FAC 4 be filed by June 24, 2019. [Report re FAC at 12.] To date, no objection has been filed, 5 nor have there been any requests for an extension of time in which to file an objection. A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 6 7 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 8 Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 9 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 10 recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and 11 Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may 12 “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 13 the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge 14 must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 15 made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 16 Cir.2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute 17 requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 18 parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. In the absence of timely objection, the Court 19 “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 20 accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 21 Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 22 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the Report re FAC. Having 23 reviewed it, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 24 Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s Report and 25 Recommendation [Doc. No. 32]; and (2) GRANTS the motion to dismiss the failure to 26 protect claim in the FAC [Doc. No. 28]. As a result, Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is 27 ///// 28 2 18cv259-CAB-MDD 1 the First Amendment Retaliation claim against both Defendants. Defendants shall 2 answer the FAC, as amended by this order, by July 26, 2019. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 5, 2019 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 18cv259-CAB-MDD

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?