Pacheco et al v. Toledo-Davila et al

Filing 228

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. After careful examination of the record and the unopposed R & R, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R & R (ECF No. 227) in full. The Municipality's and the Supervisory Defendants' motions for summary jud gement (ECF Nos. 185, 187) are GRANTED. As a result, plaintiffs' complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Supervisory Defendants' motions to strike (ECF Nos. 205, 206) are DENIED. Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 196) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is to enter Judgement accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Aida M. Delgado-Colon on 8/6/2013.(wm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
GINA PACHECO, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil No. 10-1480 (ADC)

PEDRO A. TOLEDO-DAVILA, ET AL.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiffs, Gina Pacheco, on behalf of minors, G.A.P. 1 and G.A.P. 2, in their personal
capacities and as heirs of the Estate of Elis Manuel Andrades-Telleria, and Elis Manuel
Andrades-Molina (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed this action against former Puerto Rico Police
Department (“PRPD”) Superintendent Pedro Toledo-Dávila (“Toledo”), PRP Associate
Superintendent John Doe (“Doe”), PRP Auxiliary Superintendent in charge of Public
Integrity Richard Roe (“Roe”), PRP Commanding Officer of the Carolina District Jimmy OrtízCruz (“Ortíz”), PRP Officer Osvaldo Hernández-Adorno (“Hernández-Adorno”), and his
supervisors; as well as the Municipality of Carolina, Carolina Municipal Police Commissioner,
Carolina Municipal Police Officer Daniel Cruz-Andino (“Cruz”), as well as other unnamed
defendants, each in their individual and official capacity. ECF No. 1.
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, violations of civil rights and claim damages pursuant to
section 1983 and section 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code (“section 1983” and
“section 1988”), for violations of the Fourth Amendment and under the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico’s (“Commonwealth”) general tort statute.

They aver that decedent Elis

Andrades-Telleria was illegally detained, arrested, searched, his property was illegally seized
and he was deprived of his life, in violation of his Constitutional rights. Id.
Pretrial management of the case was referred to Magistrate-Judge Silvia Carreño-Coll,
which included the issuance of a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) as to dispositive
motions. ECF NO. 119. Now before the Court are two motions for summary judgment, one

Civil No. 10-1480 (ADC)

Page 2

filed by Co-Defendants Pedro A. Toledo, Jimmy Cruz-Ortiz, Jorge D. Reyes-Quiñones, and
Ricardo Cruz (“the Supervisory Defendants”)(ECF No. 187) and another filed by the
Municipality of Carolina (“Municipality”)(ECF No. 185). On July 19, 2013, the MagistrateJudge issued an R & R which recommended granting the two motions for summary
judgement and dismissing the complaint against the defendants in its entirety. ECF No. 227.1
Plaintiffs did not object or otherwise oppose the R & R and the time to do so has expired.
I.

Standard of Review for an Unopposed Report and Recommendation
A district court may refer pending motions to a magistrate-judge for a report and

recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Loc. Cv. R. 72(a). Any
party adversely affected by the recommendation issued may file written objections within ten
(10) days of being served with the report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A
party that files a timely objection is entitled to a de novo determination of “those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which specific objection is
made.” Sylva v. Culebra Dive Shop, 389 F. Supp. 2d 189, 191-92 (D.P.R. 2005) (citing United
States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980)).
“Absent objection, ... [a] district court ha[s] a right to assume that [the affected party]
agree[s] to the magistrate’s recommendation.” López- Mulero v. Valez-Colón, 490 F. Supp. 2d
214, 217 -218 (D.P.R. 2007) (citing Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp., 770 F.2d 245, 247 (1st Cir.
1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1021 (1985)). Moreover, in conducting its review of an unopposed
R & R, the court “needs only [to] satisfy itself by ascertaining that there is no ‘ plain error’ on
the face of the record.” López-Mulero, 490 F. Supp. 2d at 218.
II.

Conclusion
After careful examination of the record and the unopposed R & R, the Court hereby

ADOPTS the R & R (ECF No. 227) in full. The Municipality’s and the Supervisory
Defendants’ motions for summary judgement (ECF Nos. 185, 187) are GRANTED. As a

1

The R & R specifically stated that failure to file objections by August 5, 2013 waives the right to
appeal the R & R. ECF No. 227.

Civil No. 10-1480 (ADC)

Page 3

result, plaintiffs’ complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Supervisory Defendants’ motions to strike (ECF Nos. 205, 206) are DENIED. Plaintiffs’ crossmotion for summary judgment (ECF No. 196) is DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is to enter Judgement accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
At San Juan, Puerto Rico, on this 6th day of August, 2013.

S/AIDA M. DELGADO-COLÓN
Chief United States District Judge