United States District Court, D. Idaho
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Edward J. Lodge, United States District Judge
February 2, 2017, Chief United States Magistrate Ronald E.
Bush issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), recommending that Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be
granted. (Dkt. 51.) Any party may challenge the Magistrate
Judge's proposed recommendation by filing written
objections within fourteen days after being served with a
copy of the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
district court must then “make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” Id. The district court may accept,
reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Id.;
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
filed objections to the Report arguing it erred in its
conclusions and findings. (Dkt. 53.) The Defendants responded
to the objections and the matter is ripe for this Court's
consideration. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; Local Civ. R. 73.1.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, this
Court “shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report which objection is made.”
Id. Where, however, no objections are filed the
district court need not conduct a de novo review. To
the extent that no objections are made, arguments to the
contrary are waived. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are
not filed within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Recommendation). “When no timely objection is filed,
the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Advisory Committee Notes to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist.
Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974)).
case, Plaintiff filed objections and the Court has conducted
a de novo review of those portions of the Report as
well as the record in this matter. The Court has also
reviewed the entire Report and record for clear error. The
Court finds as follows.
factual and procedural background of this case are correctly
stated in the Report and this Court adopts the same. (Dkt.
51.) The dispute concerns the Plaintiff's claims seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants for
their alleged violations of certain federal statutes relating
to health insurance programs and plans; specifically,
Defendants' failure to provide information, approval of
unlawful plans, and otherwise failing to comply with the
cited statutes. (Dkt. 1.) Defendants' Motions seek to
dismiss this case based on standing, ripeness, sovereign
immunity, res judicata, and/or collateral estoppel.
The Report concludes the case should be dismissed because
Plaintiff has failed to establish standing and because the
action is procedurally barred as the allegations, claims, and
injuries raised here are identical to those brought in a
prior action where Plaintiff also failed to establish
standing. (Dkt. 51.)
filed a response to the Report challenging its
characterization of his claims. (Dkt. 53.) Plaintiff further
argues he has established an injury in fact for standing
purposes; i.e. the continued failure by Defendants to provide
information to plan enrollees, in particular with regard to
the definitions of “inpatient” and
“outpatient” care and information needed in order
for consumers to choose the best plan for their
circumstances. (Dkt. 53.) Plaintiff also objects to the
conclusion that the claims are barred by res
Court has reviewed the Report de novo in light of
the arguments made by the Plaintiff in his response and
objections. The Court has also conducted a de novo
review of the parties' briefing on the Motions and the
entire record herein. Having done so, this Court agrees with
the Report's discussion of the law, analysis,
conclusions, and recommendation. The Court finds the Report
correctly characterizes the facts, circumstances,
allegations, and claims made in this case as well as those
made in the prior case. Plaintiff has again failed to show an
injury in fact in this case which leaves him without standing
to bring this action. Moreover, Plaintiff is procedurally
barred from relitigating the standing question. The Complaint
in this case makes the same allegations and raises the same
claims and injuries as in the prior case which was dismissed
for lack of standing. For the reasons stated in the Report,
which this Court adopts in its entirety, the Court finds the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for a Judgment
on the Pleadings should be granted. In reaching this
conclusion, the Court is mindful of the fact that the
Plaintiff is a pro se litigant. Nordstrom v.
Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014); Blaisdell
v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013).
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation entered on February 2, 2016 (Dkt. 51) is
ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY and the Defendants' Motions (Dkt.
10, 27) are GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED.