Lietz v. United States of America et al

Filing 19

ORDER - NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on February 15, 2016 (Dkt. 18 ) is ADOPTED IN ITSENTIRETY. The Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12 ) is GRANTED. 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
PAUL LIETZ,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al, )
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-00483-EJL-REB
ORDER

INTRODUCTION
On February 15, 2016, Chief United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush issued
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Defendants’ Motion to
dismiss be granted. (Dkt. 18.) 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, 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 have
been filed and the time for doing so has passed. The matter is 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
ORDER - Page 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. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v.
United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974)).
ORDER - Page 2

This Court has reviewed the entire Report as well as the full record in this matter for
clear error on the face of the record and none has been found.
DISCUSSION
The complete procedural background and facts of this case are well articulated in the
Report and the Court incorporates the same in this Order. (Dkt. 18.) Plaintiff, Paul Lietz,
initiated this action alleging constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and state-law based claims
against the Defendants relating to their denial and improper determinations of his claims for
veteran benefits, entitlements, and/or reimbursements. (Dkt. 4.) Defendants filed the instant
Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (Dkt.
12.) Chief Magistrate Judge Bush held a hearing on the Motion and, thereafter, issued the
Report which concludes that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Lietz’s
claims and, therefore, recommends granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 17,
18.)
This Court has reviewed the original briefing of the parties, the Report, and the entire
record herein. In doing so, the Court is mindful that the Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and, as
such, the filings and motions are construed liberally. See Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144,
1150 (9th Cir. 2010). That being said, while pro se litigants are held to less stringent
standards, a litigant's pro se status does not excuse him or her from complying with the
procedural or substantive rules of the court. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per
curiam); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003). As the Ninth Circuit has held
“an ordinary pro se litigant, like other litigants, must comply strictly with the summary
ORDER - Page 3

judgment rules.” Thomas, 611 F.3d at 1150 (citing Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219
(9th Cir. 2007)).
Applying these principles here, this Court is in agreement with the Report’s reasoning
and conclusion that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Lietz’s claims. (Dkt.
18.) Moreover, the Court is in agreement with the Report’s recitation of the facts, discussion
of the applicable law, and analysis. This Court is simply not the correct forum for Mr. Lietz’s
claims. See Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1026 (9th Cir. 2012).
For the reasons stated in the Report and herein, the Court adopts the Report and will grant
the Motion to Dismiss.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation entered on February 15, 2016 (Dkt. 18) is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12) is GRANTED.
DATED: March 8, 2016

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER - Page 4