Haro v. Camargo et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ; granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in the R&R on or before April 24, 2015. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/2/2015. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(sjt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JOHNNY JOE HARO.
CDCR #P-08307,

Civil No.
Plaintiff,

13
14

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEWIS’
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; AND (2)
GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

vs.

15

D. CAMARGO; J. SAIS; L. VEGA; and
D. MAY,

16

(ECF No. 10, 15)

Defendants.

17

14-CV-1782 JLS (PCL)

18
19

Presently before the Court is Defendants D. Camargo, J. Sais, L. Vega, and D.

20

May’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 10.) Also

21

before the Court is Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis’ Report and Recommendation

22

(“R&R”) advising this Court to grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion to

23

Dismiss. (ECF No. 15.)

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district

25

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court must “make

26

a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made,” and

27

“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

28

by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447
1

14cv1782 JLS (PCL)

1

U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989).

2

However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there

3

is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.

4

R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d

5

196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

6

Here, the parties failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Lewis’ R&R.

7

Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is well reasoned and contains no clear

8

error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lewis’ R&R in its

9

entirety; (2) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion to

10

Dismiss.

11

Accordingly, (1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on exhaustion grounds is

12

DENIED; (2) Defendants Motion to Dismiss the injunctive claims for relief is

13

GRANTED and Plaintiff’s injunctive claims for relief are DISMISSED WITHOUT

14

PREJUDICE; and (3) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the official capacity claims against

15

Defendants is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint curing the

16

deficiencies outlined in the R&R on or before April 24, 2015.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

DATED: March 2, 2015
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

14cv1782 JLS (PCL)