Opinion
Case No. CV 14-0283 DMG (SS)
09-29-2016
GLENN BOSWORTH, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND MODIFYING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, as amended by the dismissal of improperly named and redundant Defendants, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, all the records and files herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff's Objections. After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Objections were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. However, the Court briefly addresses certain of Plaintiff's Objections as follows.
Plaintiff contends that he was denied due process because the Magistrate Judge "completely failed" to provide him with a copy of the Court's Scheduling Order or to rule on his motion to reopen discovery. The Court's docket reflects that the Court mailed the Scheduling Order to Plaintiff at his then-current address of record on August 4, 2015. [Doc. # 26.] After the Order was returned to the Court as undeliverable, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide an updated address. [Doc. # 29.] In response, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery that reflected his new address. [Doc. # 31.]
The Court denied Plaintiff's motion as premature, but without prejudice to re-filing if the government's declarations on summary judgment suggested that the government's searches for documents responsive to Plaintiff's Freedom of Information Act requests were inadequate. [Doc. # 31.] The Court mailed the Order to Plaintiff at both the updated address reflected in the motion and his prior address of record, which continued to be identified as his current housing on the Federal Bureau of Prison's inmate locator webpage. [Id.] The Order also included as an attachment a copy of the Court's earlier Scheduling Order. [Id.] Accordingly, there is no merit to Plaintiff's contention that the Court failed to provide the Scheduling Order or rule on his discovery motion.
Even if Plaintiff could demonstrate that he did not receive the Court's Scheduling Order or Order denying his motion to reopen discovery, Plaintiff has not shown any prejudice. Plaintiff's Objections do not seriously challenge the adequacy of the government's searches or impugn the integrity of the government's declarations. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Objections fail to offer any grounds to conclude that discovery is necessary in this case.
The Court modifies the Report and Recommendation by striking the phrase "(stopped here 7/20)", on page 7, lines. 14-15.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court shall serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on Plaintiff at his current address of record and on counsel for Defendants.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. DATED: September 29, 2016
/s/_________
DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE