Williams v. Navarro

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 18-CV-1581 TWR (KSC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) VACATING 13 v. SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 ORDER; (2) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 OFFICER NAVARRO, et al., RECOMMENDATION, AND 15 Defendants. (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 JUDGMENT 17 (ECF Nos. 145, 172, 173) 18 19 Presently before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 145, 20 “Mot.”) filed by the sole remaining Defendant to this action, T. Brisco, erroneously named 21 as T. Brisio. The Honorable Karen S. Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation re 22 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 172, “R&R”) recommending that 23 the Court grant Defendant’s Motion. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation 24 on September 30, 2022, prior to receiving Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 173.) Plaintiff 25 had timely mailed objections to the Report and Recommendation, but they did not reach 26 the Court before the filing deadline. (ECF No. 175, “Obj.”) Before the Court had the 27 opportunity to review and rule on Plaintiff’s objections, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal 28 to the Ninth Circuit, divesting this Court of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 176.) The Court then 1 issued an Indicative Ruling stating that it would consider and rule on Plaintiff’s objections 2 if it had jurisdiction. (ECF No. 177.) The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to this 3 Court for the limited purpose of enabling the Court to consider and rule on Plaintiff’s 4 objections. (ECF No. 180.) In light of Plaintiff’s timely objections, the Court VACATES 5 its prior order adopting the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 173), which did not 6 consider Plaintiff’s objections. But even considering Plaintiff’s objections, and having 7 carefully reviewed the Parties’ arguments, the record, Magistrate Judge Crawford’s Report 8 and Recommendation, and the relevant law, the Court ADOPTS the Report and 9 Recommendation in its entirety and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. 10 BACKGROUND 11 Magistrate Judge Crawford’s Report and Recommendation contains a thorough and 12 accurate recitation of the factual and procedural history underlying Defendant Brisco’s 13 Motion. (See R&R at 2.) This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth 14 therein. 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending 17 before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those 18 portions of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, 19 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United 21 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). “[Section 636(b)(1)(C)] does not on 22 its face require any review at all, by either the district court or the court of appeals, of any 23 issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 24 Consequently, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that 25 there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. 27 U.S. Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 28 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 1 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 2 Objections must be “specific,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), consequently, “[n]umerous courts 3 have held that a general objection to the entirety of a Magistrate Judge’s [report and 4 recommendation] has the same effect as a failure to object.” Alcantara v. McEwen, No. 5 12-CV-401-IEG (DHB), 2013 WL 4517861, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013) (collecting 6 cases). Furthermore, any objections that “merely repeat the arguments already rejected by” 7 the Magistrate Judge must be overruled because “[o]bjections to a magistrate’s Findings 8 and Recommendations are not a vehicle for the losing party to relitigate its case.” Hagberg 9 v. Astrue, No. CV-09-01-BLG-RFC-CSO, 2009 WL 3386595, at *1 (D. Mont. Oct. 14, 10 2009); see Thompson v. Nawaz, 2:20-cv-10448-SVW (SK), 2022 WL 4109449, at * 1 11 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2022). The benefit of magistrate judges ceases to exist if district courts 12 “are required to review [an] entire matter de novo because the objecting party merely 13 repeats the arguments rejected by the magistrate.” Hagberg, 2009 WL 3386595, at *1. 14 ANALYSIS 15 In a single paragraph, Plaintiff “globally” objects to Magistrate Judge Crawford’s 16 Report and Recommendation, stating his claims are supported by case law and “solid 17 evidence.” (Obj. at 1.) He then repeats the same arguments Magistrate Judge Crawford 18 already considered and rejected. (See id.). Plaintiff’s general objections do not trigger this 19 Court’s de novo review, and his objections that seek to relitigate the entire matter by 20 repeating the same arguments made to Magistrate Judge Crawford are overruled. Having 21 reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough, well- 22 reasoned, and contains no clear error. Concluding that nothing in Plaintiff’s objections 23 affects the material findings and conclusions in Magistrate Judge Crawford’s Report and 24 Recommendation, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and 25 GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 CONCLUSION 2 In light of the foregoing, the Court VACATES its September 30, 2022, order (ECF 3 173), ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Crawford’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4 in its entirety, and GRANTS Defendant Brisco’s Motion for Summary Judgment 5 || ECF No. 145). Because Defendant Brisco was the sole remaining Defendant in this action, 6 || the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: November 8, 2022 —— (2 [5 □□ re 10 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28