Lonn v. Corizon Health et al

Filing 49

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS the Report and Recommendation entered on 6/26/15 (Dkt. 44 ) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as follows: 1) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings (Dkt. 32 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his second a mended complaint, in accordance with the direction as stated in the Report, on or before 10/2/15. 2) Dr. Klint Stander's Motion for Partial Dismissal and/or Summary Judgment (Dkt. 30 ) is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED as stated in the Report. 3) Dr. April Dawson's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 14 ) is DENIED as stated in the Report. 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 (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DAVID K. LONN,
Case No. 1:14-CV-00031-EJL
Plaintiff,
ORDER ON REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
CORIZON HEALTH, DR. APRIL
DAWSON, DR. DAVID AGLER, and
DR. KLINT STANDER,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
On June 26, 2015, United States Chief Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to Amend (Dkt. 32) be granted, Dr. Klint Stander’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 30) be
conditionally granted, and Dr. April Dawson’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 14) be denied. (Dkt.
44.) Any party may challenge a magistrate judge’s proposed recommendation by filing
written objections to the Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the
same. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Civil Rule 72.1(b). The district court must then
“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The district court may accept, reject,
ORDER- 1

or modify in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate
judge. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No written objections were filed and the time for
doing so has passed. The matter is now ripe for the Court’s consideration. See Local Civil
Rule 72.1(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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.

ORDER- 2

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. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v.
United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974)).
The Court has reviewed the entire Report as well as the record in this matter for clear
error on the face of the record and none has been found. Having completed such review, this
Court concludes it is in agreement with the reasoning and recommendations as articulated
in the Report and will incorporate and adopt the same as its own and will enter the following
Order.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation entered on June 26, 2015 (Dkt. 44) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY
as follows:
1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings (Dkt. 32) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file his second amended complaint, in accordance with the
direction as stated in the Report, on or before October 2, 2015.

2)

Dr. Klint Stander’s Motion for Partial Dismissal and/or Summary Judgment
(Dkt. 30) is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED as stated in the Report.

ORDER- 3

3)

Dr. April Dawson’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 14) is DENIED as stated in
the Report.

DATED: September 2, 2015

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER- 4