Cejas v. Paramo et al

Filing 120

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 115 ) is adopted in its entirety. Defendants' Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's IFP Status and Dismiss Case (ECF No. 106 ) is denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/08/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ANDREW CEJAS,

Case No.: 14-cv-1923-WQH-WVG
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,,
Defendants.

14
15

HAYES, Judge:

16

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued

17

by United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo (ECF No. 115), recommending that

18

Defendants’ Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s IFP Status and Dismiss Case (ECF No. 106) be

19

denied.

20

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a

21

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §

22

636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the

23

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

24

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The

25

district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to

26

which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005);

27

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the

28
1
14-cv-1923-WQH-WVG

1

Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo,

2

findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”).

3

No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has

4

reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the Parties.

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 115) is

6

adopted in its entirety. Defendants’ Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s IFP Status and Dismiss

7

Case (ECF No. 106) is DENIED.

8

Dated: October 8, 2019

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
14-cv-1923-WQH-WVG