McGinnis v. Ramos

Filing 50

ORDER: (1) Adopting 46 Report and Recommendation, and (2) Granting Defendant's 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court adopts in its entirety Judge Burkhardts Report & Recommendation, and grants Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/28/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY McGINNIS, P-19835,

Case No.: 15-CV-2812 JLS (JLB)

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2)
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

v.
A.T. RAMOS,
Defendant.

15
16

(ECF Nos. 41, 46)

17
18
19

Presently before the Court are Defendant A.T. Ramos’s Motion for Summary

20

Judgment, (ECF No. 41), and Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Report and

21

Recommendation concerning Defendant’s Motion, (“R&R,” ECF No. 46).

22

Burkhardt ordered the parties file any objections no later than July 23, 2018. On July 26,

23

2018, Plaintiff Anthony McGinnis filed a motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 48),

24

which the Court granted, (ECF No. 49).1 Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendant’s Motion

Judge

25
26
27
28

The Court determined that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time was timely because of the mailing
date. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (applying prisoner mailbox rule to
§ 1983 cases). Plaintiff requested a sixteen or twenty-one day extension; the Court extended time to
respond by sixteen days. (ECF No. 49, at 2.) Twenty-one days has elapsed and Plaintiff has not filed his
objections.
1

1
15-CV-2812 JLS (JLB)

1

and failed to timely object to the Report and Recommendation.

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

the absence of timely objection, however, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is

9

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

10

Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196,

11

206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

12

Here, Plaintiff failed to file timely objections to Judge Burkhardt’s R&R. Having

13

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

14

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Burkhardt’s R&R (ECF No. 46),

15

and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 41). This Order

16

concludes litigation in this case and the Clerk of Court SHALL close the file.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2018

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
15-CV-2812 JLS (JLB)