Moody et al v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 65

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 64 ) is adopted in its entirety. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants (ECF No. 56 ) is granted in part and denied in part. A Final Pretrial Conference is set for 4/29/2021 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable William Q. Hayes. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 2/16/2021.(ag)

Case 3:18-cv-01110-WQH-AGS Document 65 Filed 02/17/21 PageID.699 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONNIE L. MOODY, et al.,

Case No.: 3:18-cv-01110-WQH-AGS

12
13
14
15
16

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

17
Defendants.

18
19

HAYES, Judge:

20

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by

21

Defendants (ECF No. 56) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate

22

Judge (ECF No. 64).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation
1
3:18-cv-01110-WQH-AGS

Case 3:18-cv-01110-WQH-AGS Document 65 Filed 02/17/21 PageID.700 Page 2 of 2

1

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

2

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Neither the

3

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

4

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

5

The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. The Court has

6

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

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 64) is

8

ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants (ECF

9

No. 56) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Clerk of the Court shall

10

enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs Gary T. Deans and Donnel E.

11

Jones as to Plaintiffs’ conspiracy-to-retaliate claims. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

12

judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Donnel E. Jones as to Plaintiff’s

13

official-capacity claim against Defendant Paramo. Summary judgment is denied as moot

14

as to Plaintiff Donnel E. Jones’s retaliation claim against Defendants Bravo, Salazar, and

15

Paramo.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final pretrial conference is set for April 29,

17

2021 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable William Q. Hayes. Unless otherwise ordered by

18

the Court, all parties shall appear telephonically for the Final Pretrial Conference. Parties

19

are directed to join on a conference call, then contact K. Sellars 619-321-0238 at the time

20

of the conference. The parties shall lodge an amended proposed pretrial order on or before

21

March 19, 2021.

22

Dated: February 16, 2021

23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:18-cv-01110-WQH-AGS