United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN PART
(ECF NO. 31); (2) GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF
NOS. 19, 20); AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT TRIMBLE (ECF NO.
Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Allegations in the Complaint
October 7, 2014, as he was leaving the dining room at
Calipatria State Prison, Plaintiff Jermaine Robert Blair
claims he heard Correction Officer (“C.O.”)
Trimble say, “Yeah, shithead, I’m talking to
you!” to which Blair responded, “Fuck you.”
(Complaint, ECF No. 1.) C.O. Trimble then approached Blair
“in an aggressive manner” and, although Blair
complied with his orders to turn around, he “appl[ied]
the handcuffs with such force they lacerated my skin and
immediately stopped circulation.” (Id.) C.O.
Trimble then proceeded to “put his hand in an
unconventional manner between my arm and over my shoulder to
propel me forward” to the Program Office.
(Id.) Enroute to the Program Office, words were
exchanged, and C.O. Trimble “then attempted to slam me
face first into the asphalt but I ended up on my knees; with
him now applying a choke hold, attempting to choke me
out.” (Id.) Blaire claims the incident was
captured on videotape and will confirm that C.O.
Trimble’s “actions were excessive, unnecessary
and without justifiable provocation.” (Id.)
Blair’s November 13, 2014, disciplinary hearing, it was
alleged that, on October 7, 2014, Blair resisted C.O. Trimble
in the performance of his duties. (ECF No. 22-2, Ex. A.) The
Hearing Officer considered a videotape of the incident,
written reports from C.O. Trimble, as well as other
witnesses, and Blair’s oral testimony. (Id.)
The Hearing Officer found Blair guilty of resisting a peace
officer in the performance of his duties, because, at the
initial escort, the video showed Blair stop and pull away,
which temporarily prevented the escort from proceeding.
(Id.) When asked at the hearing why he had initially
paused, Blair was unable to explain the pause, so “[a]t
that point, Inmate Blair began to resist which reasonably
caused the officer to make adjustments on his grip before
continuing with the escort.” (Id.) The Hearing
Officer made no findings about the later confrontation in
which Blair was taken down to his knees or C.O. Trimble
allegedly administered a choke hold, nor did the Hearing
Officer make any findings about the tightness of the
result of the guilty finding, Blair was assessed 90 days
forfeiture of credits and 10 days loss of yard.
Court reviews de novo those portions of a Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(“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. However, “[t]he statute [28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(c)] 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.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia,
328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); 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 rule of law 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 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).
must be written and specific. See, e.g.,
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2) (“[A] party may serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations” of the magistrate judge.)
“Numerous courts have held that a general objection to
the entirety of a Magistrate Judge’s R&R has the
same effect as a failure to object.” Alcantara v.
McEwen, No. 12-cv-401 IEG (DHB), 2013 WL 4517861 at *1
(S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013) (citing cases).
indicates that he accepts the Magistrate Judge’s
R&R on the two Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.
33.) Hence, the Court GRANTS the Motions for Summary Judgment
with respect to Defendants McNair, Montgomery, and Valdez.
(ECF Nos. 19, 20.)
objects only to the Motion to Dismiss with respect to
Defendant Trimble. (ECF No. 33.) Therefore, the Court turns
to the Magistrate Judge’s reasons for recommending
dismissal with respect to Trimble.
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme
Court held that if a plaintiff seeks damages in a case that
would “necessarily imply the invalidity” of an
underlying conviction, the plaintiff cannot pursue a claim
for damages and the complaint must be dismissed.
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. The Supreme Court extended
this doctrine to a prisoner’s claim for damages in a
case that would ...