Opinion
Case No. 2:14-cv-01982-SU
04-08-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. ARLEN SMITH, JERRY HARRYMAN, and ROTISH SINGH, Plaintiffs-Relators, and ARLEN SMITH, JERRY HARRYMAN, and ROTISH SINGH, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COLETTE S. PETERS, Director, Oregon Department of Corrections; BRIAN BELLEQUE, Acting Deputy Director, Oregon Department of Corrections; MITCH MORROW, Deputy Director, Oregon Department of Corrections; MIKE GOWERS, Assistant Director, Oregon Department of Corrections; STEVEN FRANKS, Administrator, Oregon Department of Corrections; KIM BROCKAMP, Administrator, Oregon Department of Corrections; KETTY RATHS, Administrator, Oregon Department of Corrections; ANITA NELSON, Administrator and Manager of Commissary Operations, Oregon Department of Corrections; MARK NOOTH, Assistant Director, Oregon Department of Corrections; and JOHN DOES numbers one through ten, Defendants.
ORDER :
Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation [109] on October 29, 2019, in which she recommends the Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [98]. Plaintiffs timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Court has carefully considered Plaintiffs' objections. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs raise a number of issues in their objections that were not briefed before Judge Sullivan. For example, Plaintiffs argue they have successfully pleaded a new claim for the "fraudulent use of interagency mail" under the False Claims Act. The Court declines to address issues raised for the first time on review. See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting the Fourth Circuit's holding that a district court must consider new arguments raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge's F&R); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000) (district courts have discretion to consider new evidence raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge's F&R); Olmos v. Ryan, No. CV-11-00344-PHX-GMS, 2013 WL 3199831, at *8 (D. Ariz. June 24, 2013) ("Generally, a district court need not consider new arguments raised for the first time in objections to an R & R."). The Court concludes that the remaining objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendation [109]. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [98] is GRANTED and this action is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 8, 2020.
/s/_________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge