From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quezada v. McDowell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
Aug 12, 2019
No. ED CV 18-00251-VBF-MAA (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2019)

Summary

denying defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's supervisory liability claim where plaintiff alleged he repeatedly notified supervising defendant about subordinate defendants' "systematic retaliations against Plaintiff, yet [the supervisor] failed to act."

Summary of this case from Loescher v. Cnty. of Plumas

Opinion

No. ED CV 18-00251-VBF-MAA

08-12-2019

ALVARO QUEZADA, Plaintiff, v. N. McDOWELL et al., Defendants.


ORDER
Overruling Plaintiff's Objections; Adopting Report & Recommendation; Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
[Doc # 27]

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the records in this case, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") to which plaintiff has specifically objected and finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R. The Court finds discussion of the objections to be unnecessary on this record. "The Magistrates Act 'merely requires the district judge to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.'" It does not require a written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. See MacKenzie v. Calif. AG, 2016 WL 5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (citation omitted). "This is particularly true where, as here, the objections are plainly unavailing." Smith v. Calif. Jud. Council, 2016 WL 6069179, *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016). Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions and implement the R&R's recommendations.

ORDER

Plaintiff's objections [Doc # 40] are OVERRULED.

The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 39] is ADOPTED.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc # 27] is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to Defendants' re-raising the issues of (1) Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, and (2) Qualified Immunity, at a later stage in these proceedings.

The case remains open and referred to the United States Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2019

/s/_________

HON. VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Quezada v. McDowell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
Aug 12, 2019
No. ED CV 18-00251-VBF-MAA (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2019)

denying defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's supervisory liability claim where plaintiff alleged he repeatedly notified supervising defendant about subordinate defendants' "systematic retaliations against Plaintiff, yet [the supervisor] failed to act."

Summary of this case from Loescher v. Cnty. of Plumas
Case details for

Quezada v. McDowell

Case Details

Full title:ALVARO QUEZADA, Plaintiff, v. N. McDOWELL et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Aug 12, 2019

Citations

No. ED CV 18-00251-VBF-MAA (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2019)

Citing Cases

Tennyson v. Cnty. of Sacramento

For example, in the prisoner civil rights action of Quezada v. McDowell, the court denied defendants' motion…

Tabayoyon v. City of Vacaville

In Quezada, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's supervisory liability claim where…