Epps v. Grannis et al

Filing 60

ORDER: Adopting 59 Report and Recommendation; Denying Plaintiff's 20 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 8/22/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

FILED

AUG 23 2.011

1

CLERK U S DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DiSTRICT Of
LlfORNIA
DEPUTY

2

BY

3

4
5
6

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

OMAR ERNEST EPPS,

12
13

CASE NO. 1O-cv-01949 BEN (MOD)
Plaintiff,

ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

vs.

14
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

15
N. GRANNIS, et aI.,
16
Defendants.
17

[Docket Nos. 20, 59]

18

Plaintiff Omar Ernest Epps, a prisoner at Calipatria State Prison proceeding pro se, filed a

19

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction on February 22, 2011.

20

(Docket No. 20.) On May 20,2011, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (Docket No. 50.)

21

On June 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a reply. (Docket No. 56.)

22

Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and

23

Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Reliefbe denied. (Docket No.

24

59.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due August 19,2011. (ld) Neither

25

party filed any objections.

26

ADOPTED.

27

For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modifY the recommended disposition" of a magistrate

28 judge on a dispositive matter. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). "[T]he district

- 1-

lOcv01949

1 judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly
2

objected to." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge

3

must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo ij objection is made, but

4

not otherwise."

5

(emphasis in original), cert denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992,

6

1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review,

7

de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia,

8

328 F.3d at 1121. Accordingly, the Court may deny Plaintiffs Motion on this basis alone.

9
10

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane)

In the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Dembin's Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

DATED: August~11

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 2-

IOcvOl949