United States District Court, D. Idaho
DEAN A. CARMEN, Plaintiff,
BREVILLE USA, INC., f/k/a METRO/THEBE, INC. d/b/a/HWI USA a California corporation, BREVILLE HOLDINGS USA, INC., a California corporation, BREVILLE GROUP LIMITED a foreign business entity, BREVILLE PTY LIMITED, a foreign business entity, BREVILLE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a foreign business entity, and BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., a New York corporation, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
J. LODGE JUDGE
20, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted. (Dkt. 83.) 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 have been filed and the matter
is ripe for the Court's consideration. See Local
Civ. R. 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.
The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the requirements of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) stating:
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….“to the
extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article
III concerns, it need not be exercised unless requested by
the parties.” Neither the Constitution nor the statute
requires a district judge to review, de novo,
findings and recommendations that the parties themselves
accept as correct.
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see also
Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th
Cir. 2005). 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)).
complete procedural background and facts of this case are
well articulated in the Report and the Court incorporates the
same in this Order. Briefly, Plaintiff Dean Carmen initiated
this action by filing his Complaint against the Defendants
Breville USA, Inc. and Breville Holdings, USA, Inc.
(collectively “Breville”) alleging seven products
liability based claims seeking damages for injuries he claims
to have suffered when he used a Breville expresso maker in
April of 2013. Breville filed the instant Motion for Summary
Judgment on all claims arguing Mr. Carmen has failed to
identify any defect or point to any evidence supporting a
finding of any defect with the expresso maker nor has he
shown that any defect caused his injuries. (Dkt. 64.) Mr.
Carmen filed a response to the Motion. (Dkt.
The Report recommends granting Breville's Motion for
Summary Judgment concluding that Mr. Carmen has failed to
point to any evidence giving rise to a genuine issue of
material fact that the expresso maker in question was
defective and/or that such defect caused his injuries. (Dkt.
83.) The Report further concludes that Mr. Carmen has not
provided any evidence that Breville knew or had reason to
know the expresso maker was likely to be unsafe when used for
its intended purpose such that it had a duty to warn. (Dkt.
Court has reviewed the original briefing of the parties, the
Report, and the entire record herein. In doing so, the Court
is mindful that the Plaintiff is a pro se litigant
and, as such, the filings and motions are construed
liberally. See Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150
(9th Cir. 2010). That being said, while pro se
litigants are held to less stringent standards, a
litigant's pro se status does not excuse him or
her from complying with the procedural or substantive rules
of the court. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972) (per curiam); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750,
757 (9th Cir. 2003). As the Ninth Circuit has held “an
ordinary pro se litigant, like other litigants, must
comply strictly with the summary judgment rules.”
Thomas, 611 F.3d at 1150 (citing Bias v.
Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007)).
these principles here, this Court finds no clear error in the
Report. Moreover, this Court agrees with the Report's
recitation of the facts, discussion of the applicable law,
analysis, reasoning, and conclusion finding that Mr. Carmen
has failed to point to evidence giving rise to a genuine
issue of material fact as to the material elements of his
claims. This Court adopts and incorporates the findings and
conclusions of the Report. For the reasons stated in the
Report, the Court finds Mr. Carmen has failed to identify any
defect in the expresso maker, point to evidence that such a
defect existed in the expresso maker in question, or show
that Breville had a duty to warn consumers. The Court also
finds there is no evidence that any defect caused Mr.
Carmen's injuries. For these reasons, the Court grants
the Motion for Summary Judgment and dismisses the claims
brought against the Breville Defendants.
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation entered on June 20, 2018 (Dkt. 83) is
ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY and the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 64) is
FURTHER ORDERED that the claims made against Defendants
Breville USA, Inc. and Breville ...