Holestine v. Covello

Opinion

ERNEST KELLY HOLESTINE, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0159-LAB-JLB CDCR #J-01366, ORDER: Plaintiff, vs. 1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Dkt. 27]

2) GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE PATRICK COVELLO, et al., TO FILE FIRST AMENDED Defendants. COMPLAINT [Dkt. 24]; and 3) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [Dkt. 19]

Ernest Kelly Holestine, currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) in Soledad, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. Dkt. 24. No party opposed the Motion, and each Defendant served with the Motion filed a Joint Notice of Non-Opposition to it. No party timely objected to Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 27, that the Court grant that Motion and deny as moot Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss the initial complaint. Dkt. 19. Civil Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636 govern review of a magistrate judge’s R&R on a dispositive motion. They require de novo review of only objected-to portions of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (de novo review not required unless party objects to R&R). Parties acquiesce to an R&R by not raising a timely objection. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. The Court has read the briefing and Judge Burkhardt’s R&R. The R&R’s reasoning is sound and its disposition correct. The Court ADOPTS the R&R IN FULL. The Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED, The Motion to Dismiss challenges the sufficiency of a superseded pleading, so that Motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Dated: December 21, 2020 Hon. Larry Alan Burns Chief United States District Judge