Carney v. Ford et al

Filing 45

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on December 23, 2015 34 is ADOPTED and the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss 7 and 10 are GRANTED. The claims against Defendant Honorable Daniel Steckel and Defendant Adam Dingeldein are HEREBY DISMISSED. 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 (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

GARRY SEITZ CARNEY,
Case No. 1:15-CV-00167-EJL-REB
Plaintiff,
ORDER ON REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
MERIDIAN POLICE OFFICER TONY
FORD (#3081), et al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
On December 23, 2015, United States Chief Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush issued
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss be granted. (Dkt. 34.)1 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

1

This Order and Report relate only to the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Honorable
Daniel Steckel and Adam Dingeldein. (Dkt. 7, 10, 34.) Other Defendants have filed Motions
to Dismiss which will be addressed in due course. (Dkt. 26, 28, 36, 39, 40, 42.)
ORDER- 1

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). The Plaintiff filed written
objections to the Report. (Dkt. 41.) 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 Report as well as the entire record in this matter for clear
error on the face of the record and none has been found. The Court has also conducted a de
novo review of those portions of the Report to which the Plaintiff has objected and finds as
follows.
DISCUSSION
A complete procedural and factual background of this case is set forth in the Report
and this Court incorporates the same in this Order. (Dkt. 34.) In general, Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges the Defendants violated his constitutional rights by their respective actions
taken during a October 25, 2014 traffic stop and resulting prosecution of the Plaintiff. (Dkt.
1.) The Report concluded that the Motions to Dismiss as to Defendants the Honorable Daniel
Steckel and Adam Dingeldein should be granted as both are entitled to absolute immunity.
(Dkt. 34.) Plaintiff objects raising several arguments disputing the Report’s characterizations,
findings, and conclusions. (Dkt. 41.)
This Court has reviewed the original briefing of the parties, the Report, Plaintiff’s
objections, as well as the entire record herein. This review was undertaken with the Court
being mindful that the Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and, as such, the filings and motions are
ORDER- 3

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 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 reasoning and conclusions of the Report and will
adopt the same in its entirety.
The Plaintiff’s constitutional claims in this case are subject to the defenses of absolute
and qualified immunity where, as here, the Defendants actions were taken in the performance
of their judicial and/or prosecutorial functions. The Report correctly articulates the law
applicable to the immunity defenses. This Court agrees with the Report’s analysis and
reasoning concluding that both Defendants Steckel and Dingeldein were performing their
judicial and prosecutorial functions such that they are entitled to absolute immunity in this
case. (Dkt. 34.) The Court has considered the Plaintiff’s objections and finds they raise
arguments already considered and properly addressed by the Magistrate Judge in the Report.
(Dkt. 41.) Namely, the Plaintiff’s jurisdictional challenges. (Dkt. 1, 13, 14, 41.) This Court
also agrees with and adopts the Report’s recommendation to deny leave to amend as doing
so would be futile. See Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.
2009) (“futility of amendment alone can justify the denial of a motion” to amend.). Based on
ORDER- 4

the foregoing and for the reasons stated in the Report, the Court will grant the Motions to
Dismiss as to Defendants Steckel and Dingeldein.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation entered on December 23, 2015 (Dkt. 34) is ADOPTED and the
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. 7, 10) are GRANTED. The claims against Defendant
Honorable Daniel Steckel and Defendant Adam Dingeldein are HEREBY DISMISSED.
DATED: February 19, 2016

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER- 5