Turner Jr. v. George Bailey Detention et al

Filing 71

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Docket Nos. 51 , 52 , 69 ). The Court has conducted a de novo review and fully adopts the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 11/23/2015.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DAVID B. TURNER,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

Case No.: 13CV2090 BEN (JLB)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
GEORGE BAILEY DETENTION
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

[Docket Nos. 51, 52, 69]

15
16

Plaintiff David B. Turner, proceeding pro se, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §

17

1983. The case proceeded as to two claims against two Defendants, James Madsen and

18

Jill Farris. Motions for summary judgment were filed by Plaintiff and Defendants.

19

(Docket Nos. 51, 52.) Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion and a Reply

20

in support of their Motion. (Docket Nos. 55, 61.) Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of his

21

own Motion. (Docket No. 60.)

22

On October 23, 2015, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a thoughtful and

23

thorough Report and Recommendation recommending this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion

24

for Summary Judgment and grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket

25

No. 69.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due November 13,

26

2015. (Id.) No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and

27

Recommendation is ADOPTED.
1
13CV2090 BEN (JLB)

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a

1
2

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.

3

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and

4

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

5

However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate

6

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”

7

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

8

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor

9

the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations

10

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

11

The Court need not conduct a de novo review given the absence of objections.

12

However, the Court has conducted a de novo review and fully ADOPTS the Report and

13

Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and

14

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk shall close the

15

file.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: November 23, 2015

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
13CV2090 BEN (JLB)