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)
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?