Lehmann v. Calhoun et al
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 32 Report and Recommendations. It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on 4/19/17 32 is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 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
REUBEN D. LEHMANN, an Individual,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00544-EJL-CWD
JUDGE CALHOUN; PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY ZACHARY PALL; and
ORDER ON REPORT AND
On April 19, 2017 United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be
granted. (Dkt. 20.)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 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
objections were filed. 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
Magistrate Judge Dale also issued an Order taking judicial notice of certain mentioned
documents as matters of public record and form the basis for the complaint.
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, 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 (“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)).
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.
The full procedural background and facts of this case are well articulated in the
Report and the Court incorporates the same in this Order. (Dkt. 32.) The Plaintiff is an
individual appearing pro se. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiffs raise § 1983 claims against the Defendants
seeking damages for alleged violations of the Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments.
(Dkt. 1.) Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims against the remaining Defendants,
Officer Christensen and Prosecuting Attorney Pall, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). (Dkt. 28.)
As to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court finds the Report applied the
proper law to the facts in concluding that the Complaint failed to state a RICO claim or a
Lack of Notice claim against Officer Christensen. Even if Plaintiff had properly alleged a
claim, this Court agrees that Officer Christensen had absolute immunity to claims based on
his trial testimony.
The Court finds the Report also applied the proper law to the facts in finding that
Prosecuting Attorney Pall has immunity under § 1983 to all claims that arise out of his
conduct in prosecuting the misdemeanor charge against Lehmann.
The Report concluded that all of the claims against Officer Christensen and
Prosecuting Attorney Pall fail substantively and are also barred by immunity clauses so
they should be dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. 32.) In the alternative, the Report concluded
Plaintiff’s claims were also barred by Heck v. Humphrey as success in this matter would
imply the invalidity of his state court conviction, which remains pending on appeal,
requiring dismissal without prejudice.
ewed the re
ecord in this matter for clear error this Court agrees wit the
Report and adopts the Report’s analysis, discussion, and conclu
usion that P
should be dismissed with preju
udice as his claims fail s
substantive and are o
unity. This Court gran the Mot
tion to Dis
smiss and a of Plaint
tiff’s claim are
dismisse with prej
EREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERE that th Report and
mendation entered on April 19, 2017 (Dkt. 32 is ADOP
PTED IN IT ENTIRE
and the case is DIS
SMISSED WITH PRE
TED: May 18, 2017
ward J. Lod
Uni States D
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?