Montoya v. Mattice-Harris

Opinion

* * *

ERIC D. MONTOYA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00558-ART-CSD

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 31) AND DENYING MOTION TO AMEND K. MATTICE-HARRIS, et al., COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 29) Defendants. Pro se Plaintiff Eric D. Montoya, an inmate in the Northern Nevada Correctional Center, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants K. Mattice-Harris, Borie, Hartman, Megan, Hughes, Long-Smith, Henley, and A. Adams, alleging (1) he was placed in administrative segregation for eight months without review, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights; (2) his medical information was disclosed without his consent, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment privacy rights; (3) he did not receive medical treatment following a seizure, in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 31), recommending denial of Mr. Montoya’s Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 29) because the proposed complaint is incomplete on its face and amendment would be futile. Mr. Montoya had until October 9, 2023 to file an objection to Judge Denney’s R&R. (ECF No. 31 at 6.) To date, no objection has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and denies Mr. Montoya’s Motion to Amend Complaint. The Court “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). Where a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review and is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney recommends denial of Mr. Montoya’s Motion because the proposed amended complaint is incomplete on its face and because amendment would be futile in light of the fact that Mr. Montoya seeks to add parties against whom he has failed to state a colorable claim. Once a Plaintiff has missed the 21-day window for amending his complaint, as Mr. Montoya has here, he may generally only amend his complaint with the Court’s permission. Fed. R. Civ. P. § 15(a). However, the Court will not give leave to amend where amendment: “(1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Judge Denney found that Mr. Montoya’s proposed amended complaint was incomplete on its face because it only brought claims against three new defendants—Dzurenda, Whitmer, and Childress-Brietenbach—and failed to reallege most of the facts, claims, and defendants in Mr. Montoya’s original complaint. (ECF No. 31 at 3.) 1 Further, Judge Denney found that, even if the claim were complete on its face, amendment would be futile since Mr. Montoya fails to allege facts sufficient to sustain claims against the three proposed new defendants. □□□□ at 5.) Specifically, the proposed amended complaint vaguely alleges that the proposed new defendants, Dzurenda, Whitmer, and Childress-Brietenbach, were “aware” of Mr. Montoya’s ad-seg status but does not meaningfully describe or support that awareness. (See ECF No. 29 at 3-9.) This is not enough to establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court is satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err and adopts the R&R in full. It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 31) is accepted and adopted in full. It is further ordered that Mr. Montoya’s Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 29) is denied. Dated this 20t Day of December 2023. Ans jlosed den UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE