Holestine v. Covello ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ERNEST KELLY HOLESTINE, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0159-LAB-JLB CDCR #J-01366, 11 ORDER: Plaintiff, 12 vs. 1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 RECOMMENDATION [Dkt. 27] 14 2) GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE PATRICK COVELLO, et al., TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 15 Defendants. COMPLAINT [Dkt. 24]; and 16 3) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT [Dkt. 19] 17 18 Ernest Kelly Holestine, currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison 19 (“SVSP”) in Soledad, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Leave to 20 File a First Amended Complaint. Dkt. 24. No party opposed the Motion, and each 21 Defendant served with the Motion filed a Joint Notice of Non-Opposition to it. No 22 party timely objected to Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s Report and 23 Recommendation, Dkt. 27, that the Court grant that Motion and deny as moot 24 Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss the initial complaint. Dkt. 19. 25 Civil Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636 govern review of a magistrate judge’s 26 R&R on a dispositive motion. They require de novo review of only objected-to 27 portions of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States 28 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (de novo review 1 not required unless party objects to R&R). Parties acquiesce to an R&R by not 2 raising a timely objection. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 3 The Court has read the briefing and Judge Burkhardt’s R&R. The R&R’s 4 reasoning is sound and its disposition correct. The Court ADOPTS the R&R IN 5 FULL. The Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED, 6 The Motion to Dismiss challenges the sufficiency of a superseded pleading, so that 7 Motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: December 21, 2020 11 Hon. Larry Alan Burns Chief United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28