Mora-Contreras et al v. Peters et al

Filing 51

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 40 . Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF 31 ) is granted, but Plaintiffs have leave to file a second amended complaint. Signed on 8/22/2019 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RAFAEL MORA-CONTRERAS and
SHANE STAGGS,

Case No. 6:18-cv-00678-SB
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
COLETTE PETERS, DOUG YANCEY,
MEGHAN LEDDY, ZACHARY GOULD,
CRAIG PRINS, JERRY PLANTE,
JEREMY NOFZIGER, and JOHN DOES 15,
Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on June 20th, 2019. ECF 40. Magistrate Judge Beckerman
recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF 31) but provide Plaintiffs
an opportunity to file a second amended complaint if they are able to cure the deficiencies
identified by the Findings and Recommendation.
PAGE 1 – ORDER

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations,
“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither
party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to
require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); United
States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the court
must review de novo magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but
not otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates Act
“does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any
other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the Court review the magistrate
judge’s recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
Plaintiffs filed an objection. ECF 49. Plaintiffs argue that solitary confinement itself
violates the Due Process Clause and therefore Plaintiffs stated a claim for violations of their
procedural and substantive due process rights. The Court has reviewed de novo those portions of
Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation to which Plaintiffs have objected,
as well as Defendants’ response. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s reasoning
regarding Plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim and ADOPTS those portions of the Findings and
Recommendation.

PAGE 2 – ORDER

For those portions of Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation to
which neither party has objected, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews those matters for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is
apparent.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation,
ECF 40. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF 31) is granted, but Plaintiffs have leave to file a
second amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 22nd day of August 2019.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 3 – ORDER