United States District Court, D. Idaho
REUBEN D. LEHMANN, an Individual, Plaintiff,
JUDGE CALHOUN; PROSECUTING ATTORNEY ZACHARY PALL; and OFFICER CHRISTENSEN Defendants.
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. LODGE United States District Judge.
April 19, 2017 United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale
issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be
granted. (Dkt. 20.) Any party may challenge a magistrate
judge's proposed recommendation by filing written
objections to the Report within fourteen days after being
served with a copy of the same. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Local Civil Rule 72.1(b). 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). No objections were filed. The matter is ripe
for the Court's consideration. See Local Civil
Rule 72.1(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
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. In
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003), the court interpreted the requirements of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C):
The 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. As the Peretz Court
instructed, Ato the extent de novo review is required to
satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be exercised unless
requested by the parties.'' Peretz, 501 U.S.
at 939 (internal citation omitted). Neither the Constitution
nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo,
findings and recommendations that the parties themselves
accept as correct. See Ciapponi, 77 F.3d at 1251
(“Absent an objection or request for review by the
defendant, the district court was not required to engage in
any more formal review of the plea proceeding.”);
see also Peretz, 501 U.S. at 937-39 (clarifying that
de novo review not required for Article III purposes unless
requested by the parties) . . . .
See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 &
n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, 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)).
Court has reviewed the entire Report as well as the record in
this matter for clear error on the face of the record and
none has been found.
full procedural background and facts of this case are well
articulated in the Report and the Court incorporates the same
in this Order. (Dkt. 32.) The Plaintiff is an individual
appearing pro se. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiffs raise §
1983 claims against the Defendants seeking damages for
alleged violations of the Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth
Amendments. (Dkt. 1.) Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss all
claims against the remaining Defendants, Officer Christensen
and Prosecuting Attorney Pall, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. 28.)
dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court finds the
Report applied the proper law to the facts in concluding that
the Complaint failed to state a RICO claim or a Lack of
Notice claim against Officer Christensen. Even if Plaintiff
had properly alleged a claim, this Court agrees that Officer
Christensen had absolute immunity to claims based on his
Court finds the Report also applied the proper law to the
facts in finding that Prosecuting Attorney Pall has immunity
under § 1983 to all claims that arise out of his conduct
in prosecuting the misdemeanor charge against Lehmann.
Report concluded that all of the claims against Officer
Christensen and Prosecuting Attorney Pall fail substantively
and are also barred by immunity clauses so they should be
dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. 32.) In the alternative, the
Report concluded Plaintiff's claims were also barred by
Heck v. Humphrey as success in this matter would
imply the invalidity of his state court conviction, which
remains pending on appeal, requiring
dismissal without prejudice.
reviewed the record in this matter for clear error, this
Court agrees with the Report and adopts the Report's
analysis, discussion, and conclusion that Plaintiffs claims
should be dismissed with prejudice as his claims fail
substantively and are otherwise barred by immunity. This