English v. South Central Community Health Services et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 39 ) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Defendant Deans Motion for Summary Judgment (Dk t. 28 ) is GRANTED IN PART and Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed with prejudice. 2. Defendant Probascos Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 29 ) be GRANTED IN PART and Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed with prejudice. 3. Plaintiffs state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. 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
CHAD ALLAN ENGLISH,
Case No. 1:14-CV-00022-EJL
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
The United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a Report and
Recommendation in this matter (Dkt. 39). 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.
Previously Judge Dale Ordered that Plaintiff Chad English would only be allowed
to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claims and his state law claims. Dkt. 6.
Additionally, Judge Dale determined any similar claims contained in English’s other civil
cases (1:14-CV-0075; 1:14-CV-0076; and 1:14CV-0060) were all consolidated into this
case. Dkt. 6. Because the Report and Recommendation addresses the Eighth Amendment
and state law claims, such claims are being resolved for all four of Plaintiff’s civil cases.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may 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 “shall 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, “to
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
(“Absent 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). “When 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 to accept the recommendation.” Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2
Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th
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.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 39) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Defendant Dean’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 28) is GRANTED
IN PART and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed with
Defendant Probasco’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 29) be
GRANTED IN PART and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims are
dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
lack of jurisdiction.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3
This case shall be deemed closed.
DATED: October 12, 2016
Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 4
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?