Dawkins v. Woodford et al
Filing
179
ORDER (1) Adopting #174 Report and Recommendation; and (2) Granting #151 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Bartick's R&R in its entirety and grants the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant G. Siota are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/7/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jao)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ANTHONY D. DAWKINS,
11
12
CASE NO. 09CV1053 JLS (DHB)
Plaintiff,
vs.
13
14
15
C. BUTLER, Correctional Captain, et
al.,
Defendants.
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION; AND
(2) GRANTING MOTION BY
DEFENDANT G. SIOTA TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH
AMENDED COMPLAINT
(ECF Nos. 151, 174)
16
17
Presently before the Court is Defendant G. Siota’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
18 Fourth Amended Complaint Filed April 29, 2011 [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)]. (ECF No.
19 151). Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Bartick’s Report and Recommendation
20 (“R&R”) advising that the Court GRANT the motion. (ECF No. 174).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a
21
22 district court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court
23 must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection
24 is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
25 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also
26 United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874
27 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence of timely objection, however, the Court
28 “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
-1-
09cv1053
1 accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing
2 Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
3
Here, Plaintiff has failed to file timely objections to Magistrate Judge Bartick’s
4 R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and
5 contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Bartick’s
6 R&R in its entirety and GRANTS the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s claims against
7 Defendant G. Siota are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10 DATED: June 7, 2013
11
12
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
09cv1053
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?