Summary
identifying the subset of elements necessary to establish causation
Summary of this case from Caldwell v. Departamento De La ViviendaOpinion
Civil No. 05-2264 (FAB).
May 11, 2007.
Maria S. Kortright-Soler, M.S. Kortright Soler Law Office, San Juan, PR, Pedro R. Vazquez, III, Pedro R. Vazquez Law Office, Guaynabo, PR, for Plairitiffs.
Miguel A. Romero-Lugo, Romero, Rodriguez Quijano, PSC, Maria Judith SurilIo, Department of Justice, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A District Court may refer pending dispositive motions to a Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Loc. Rule 72(a). Any party adversely affected by the report and recommendation may file written objections within ten days of being served with the Magistrate Judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party that files a timely objection is entitled to a de novo determination of "those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which specific objection is made." Sylva v. Culebra Dive Shop, 389 F. Supp.2d 189, 191-92 (D.P.R. 2005) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980)). Failure to comply with this rule precludes further review. See Davet v. Maccorone, 973 F.2d 22, 30-31 (1st Cir. 1992). In conducting its review, the Court is free to "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)(b)(1). Templeman v. Cris Craft Corp., 770 F.2d 245, 247 (1st Cir. 1985); Alamo Rodriguez v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 286 F. Supp.2d 144, 146 (D.P.R. 2003). Furthermore, the Court may accept those parts of the report and recommendation to which the parties do not object. See Hernandez-Mejias v. General Elec., 428 F. Supp.2d 4, 6 (D. P.R. 2005) (citing Lacedra v. Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility, 334 F. Supp.2d 114, 125-126 (D.R.I. 2004)).
On May 24, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in this case, recommending that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 18) and the Supplement Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 19) be granted in part and denied in part. No objections have been filed.
Specifically, defendants Victor Ortiz-Diaz, Rafael Rodriguez, Magali Roman-Castro and Merelyn Santiago, in their personal capacities.
The undersigned, however, has made an independent examination of the record in this case and ADOPTS the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations as the opinion of this Court.
Accordingly, defendants Roman's and Santiago's request for dismissal of the procedural due process claims is hereby DENIED; defendants Roman's and Santiago's request for dismissal of section 1983 claims against them based on lack of personal involvement is hereby DENIED; Defendants' request for dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is hereby DENIED; Plaintiffs Roman's and Santiago's request for dismissal of the conspiracy claim is DENIED AS MOOT; plaintiffs' substantive due process claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Partial judgment shall enter accordingly.