Opinion
Case No. 19-cv-01344-BAS-MSB
06-15-2020
ALEJANDRO MARRON, Plaintiff, v. S. SAHA, M.D., et al., Defendants.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[ECF No. 10];
AND
(2) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
[ECF No. 7]
Plaintiff filed this action on July 18, 2019, seeking declaratory relief and monetary damages for an alleged violation of his civil rights alleging a violation of constitutional rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that while he was incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD"), Defendants Dr. S. Saha, M.D. ("Saha"), and Dr. Griffith, M.D. ("Griffith") (collectively, "Defendants") denied and delayed medical treatment and accommodations in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that although he reported to both Defendants that he suffered from knee pain that made it difficult to access his top bunk, they provided no medical treatment and disregarded his lower bunk assignment request for over six months, exacerbating his condition. (Compl. at 9-10, 13.)
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ("Motion") for failing to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion on November 15, 2019. (ECF No. 9.)
On May 13, 2020, Judge Berg issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") finding that Plaintiff's Complaint sufficiently stated claims on which relief could be granted and recommending that the Motion be denied. (ECF No. 10.) The deadline for the parties to object to the R&R was May 27, 2020. (Id. at 12.) To date, the parties have not filed any objections or requests for additional time to do so.
The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. "The statute makes it clear," however, "that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge's report). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R."); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
In this case, the deadline to file objections was May 27, 2020. (ECF No. 10.) However, neither party has filed objections or requested additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Berg's reasoning is sound and agrees with the R&R's recommendation. Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 15, 2020
/s/ _________
Hon. Cynthia Bashant
United States District Judge