Opinion
2:22-cv-00125-FWS (MAR)
11-23-2022
DEVONTE FIELDS, Plaintiff, v. J. PRITCHARD ET AL., Defendant(s).
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HON. FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint (Dkt. 1), the docket and records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 31) (“Report and Recommendation”). The records on file include a letter written by Plaintiff Devonte Fields (“Plaintiff”) after the Report and Recommendation was issued (“Plaintiff's Letter”). (Dkt. 34.) The records on file also contain a minute order by the magistrate judge stating “to the extent Plaintiff's [L]etter contends the Report and Recommendation misconstrued facts or came to incorrect legal conclusions, this court construes these concerns as Objections to the Report and Recommendation and will forward them to the District Court at the termination of the objections period.” (Dkt. 35 at 3-4).
“A judge of 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)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made, arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v. Haynes, 2021 WL 4744596, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021).
In the Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge makes several findings, including the following: (1) “Plaintiff fails to allege facts that could show the [Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”)] officers and [California Men's Colony (“CMC”) officers conspired to violate his constitutional rights,” and “[t]herefore, Claim One is subject to dismissal, and the Doe Defendants from SVSP should be terminated;” and (2) “Plaintiff fails to state a valid claim for retaliation,” and “[t]herefore, Claim Two against Defendants Pritchard, Jones, and Zeno is subject to dismissal.” (Dkt. 31 at 7-8.)
The court has reviewed Plaintiff's Letter in accordance with the magistrate judge's statement that provides “to the extent Plaintiff's [L]etter contends the Report and Recommendation misconstrued facts or came to incorrect legal conclusions, this court construes these concerns as Objections to the Report and Recommendation and will forward them to the District Court at the termination of the objections period.” (Dkt. 35 at 3-4). After conducting a de novo review of the issues presented in Plaintiff's Letter, the court agrees with each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and Recommendation. Moreover, based on its review, the court concludes the Report and Recommendation does not misconstrue facts in the record nor does it come to incorrect legal conclusions. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff's Letter contains proper objections to the Report and Recommendation, each of the Objections are OVERRULED.
Accordingly, based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, including each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Claim One and Claim Two; and
(2) Doe Defendants are TERMINATED as Defendants.