Johnson et al v. Caldwell, City of et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; incorporating and adopting 34 Report and Recommendations; granting 19 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 20 Motion to Amend/Correct. No further motions for leave to amend t he complaint will be allowed. All non-dispositive and dispositive matters are now referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DAVID JOHNSON, CONNIE
JOHNSON, and AARON JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:13-CV-00492-EJL-CWD
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
CITY OF CALDWELL, CADWELL
POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF
NAMPA, NAMPA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, CHIEF OF POLICE
CHRIS ALLGOOD, CHIEF OF POLICE
CRAIG KINGSBURY, OFFICER C.
HESSMAN, OFFICER J. DAVIS,
OFFICER J. BRIDGES, OFFICER B.
DONEY, SGT. LATHROP, AND DOES
I – X,
Defendants.

The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in this
matter. (Dkt. 34.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days in which
to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed by
the parties and the time for doing so has passed.

ORDER - 1

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), this Court Amay accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.@
Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court Ashall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.@ Id. Where,
however, no objections are filed the district court need not conduct a de novo review. In
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), the court interpreted
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C):
The statute [28 U.S.C. '_636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge
must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if
objection is made, but not otherwise. As the Peretz Court instructed, Ato the
extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not
be exercised unless requested by the parties.@ Peretz, 501 U.S. at 939
(internal citation omitted). Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a
district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the
parties themselves accept as correct. See Ciapponi, 77 F.3d at 1251 (AAbsent
an objection or request for review by the defendant, the district court was not
required to engage in any more formal review of the plea proceeding.@); see
also Peretz, 501 U.S. at 937-39 (clarifying that de novo review not required
for Article III purposes unless requested by the parties) . . . .
See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, to the
extent that no objections are made, arguments to the contrary are waived. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72; 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are not filed within fourteen
days of service of the Report and Recommendation). AWhen no timely objection is filed,
the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in

ORDER - 2

order to accept the recommendation.@ Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
(citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974)).
In this case, no objections were filed so the Court is not required to conduct a de
novo determination of the Report and Recommendation. The Court has, however, reviewed
the Report and Recommendation and the record in this matter and finds no clear error on
the face of the record. Moreover, the Court finds the Report and Recommendation is
well-founded in the law based on the facts of this particular case and this Court is in
agreement with the same.

ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 34) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in
its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Motion to Dismiss Defendants City of Nampa, Nampa Police Department, Chief
of Police Craig Kingsbury, Officer Becky Doney, and Sgt. Mick Lathrop (Dkt.
19) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Dkt. 20) is DENIED AS
MOOT. No further motions for leave to amend the complaint will be allowed.

ORDER - 3

3. All non-dispositive and dispositive matters are now referred to Chief United
States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale. Judge Dale is directed to conduct all
necessary and proper proceedings pertaining thereto.

DATED: February 4, 2015

_________________________
Edward J. Lodge
United States District Judge

ORDER - 4