Gathrite v. Wilson

Opinion

DEANGELO LAMAR GATHRITE, Case No.: 3:19-cv-01852-JAH-NLS

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ HEATHER WILSON, et al., MOTION FOR PARTIAL Defendants. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

[ECF NOS. 37 & 42] For the reasons set for below, this Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) submitted by the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), (ECF No. 42), and Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 37), is hereby On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff DeAngelo Lamar Gathrite (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his rights under the United States Constitution were violated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) by Dr. Heather Wilson and Officers Trejo and Salinas (“Defendants”). Plaintiff pleads all counts against Defendants in both their official and individual capacities. Plaintiff’s factual allegations center around an incident where he claims that Defendants impermissibly confined him in a shower which strongly smelled of urine and feces for over four hours without cause. On October 11, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (“Motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) as to the claims against Defendants in their official capacities. (ECF No. 37). On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion. (ECF No. 39). On November 15, 2022, Defendants replied. (ECF No. 40). On March 29, 2023, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes submitted the R&R to this Court recommending that Defendants’ Motion be granted. (ECF No. 42). The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that “de novo review of a [magistrate judge’s report and recommendation] is only required when an objection is made”); United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that 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”). This rule of law is well established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Hasan v. Cates, No. 11–cv–1416, 2011 WL 2470495 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2011) (Whelan, T.) (adopting in its entirety, and without review, a report and recommendation because neither party filed objections to the report despite having the opportunity to do so); accord Ziemann v. Cash, No. 11–cv–2496, 2012 WL 5954657 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012) (Benitez, R.); Rinaldi v. Poulos, No. 08—cv—1637, 2010 WL 4117471 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2010) (Lorenz, J.). Here, any objections to the R&R were due by April 12, 2023. (ECF No. 42). To no objections have been filed. Thus, in the absence of any objections, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and Defendants’ Motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. For the reasons stated in the R&R, which are incorporated herein by reference, Defendants’ Motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 37), is GRANTED. } DATED: May 5, 2023

B JOHN A. HOUSTON INITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE