Mendoza v. Doe #1 et al

Filing 155

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Ancho (ECF No. 34 ) is granted. The motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff (ECF Nos. 47 and 114 ) are denied. The motion to amend filed by Plain tiff (ECF No. 89 ) is denied. The motion requesting a bench trial filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 109 ) is denied. The motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution filed by Defendant Ancho (ECF No. 151 ) is granted. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 3/7/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)

FILED

1

[--~AR-~~~~;-1

2
3

-

__J

CLER!<, <.JS DIC::TFJICT CO
·,. , U.RT
SOUTHFi.:iNriic::-Tp'-'~C'!ORN/A
BY
- '. ' ' 0 .

4

---------· -· ---- _l?!.;'.'.:_!;JTY

5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10
11

CHRISTOPHER M. MENDOZA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER

v.

14

Case No.: 16cv2184-WQH-BGS

J. DOE, Ofc/Deputy Classification;

15
16
17
18

MULTIPLE J. JOBS,
Ofc/Deputies/Supervisors;
DEPUTY MCGUIRE,
DeputySheriff/Detention Unit;
DEPUTY ANCHO, Deputy
Sheriff/Detention Unit,
Defendants.

19
20
21

HAYES, Judge:

22

Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 153) recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to

23

prosecute, that the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Ancho (ECF No. 34)

24

be granted, that the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 47) be

25
26

denied, and that the motion to amend filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 89) be denied.

27

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

28

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

The matters before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by the

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

!6cv2184-WQH-BGS

1 report ... to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
2

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

3

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

4

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

5

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane)

6

("Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to

7

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as

8

correct.").

9

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

10

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

11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 153) is

12

adopted in its entirety.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by

14

Defendant Ancho (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED. The motions for summary judgment filed

15

by Plaintiff(ECF Nos. 47, 114) are DENIED. The motion to amend filed by Plaintiff(ECF

16

No. 89) is DENIED. The motion requesting a bench trial filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 109)

17

is DENIED. The motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution filed by Defendant Ancho (ECF

18

No. 151) is GRANTED. The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment in favor of all defendants

19

and against Plaintiff, and to close the case.

20
21

DATED:

J./7/f9

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
16cv2184-WQH-BGS