Wilson v. Segovia et al

Filing 57

ORDER(1) adopting 53 Report and Recommendation and (2) granting Defendants' 42 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Todd W. Robinson on 11/18/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (fth)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUCIOUS WILSON,

Case No.: 19-CV-2254 TWR (MDD)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION, AND
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT.

v.
SGT. SEGOVIA, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

(ECF Nos. 42, 53)

17
18

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

19

(“Motion,” ECF No. 42). Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin has issued a Report and

20

Recommendation on the Motion (“R&R,” ECF No. 53), recommending that the Court grant

21

the Motion. Having carefully reviewed the Parties’ arguments, Magistrate Judge Dembin’s

22

R&R, the underlying administrative record, and the law, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate

23

Judge Dembin’s R&R in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.

24

BACKGROUND

25

Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the

26

factual and procedural history underlying the instant Petition. (See R&R at 1–3.) This

27

Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

28

///
1
19-CV-2254 TWR (MDD)

1

LEGAL STANDARD

2

When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending

3

before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those

4

portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify,

5

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28

6

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United

7

States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is

8

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record

9

in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note

10

to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert.

11

denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

12

(9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate

13

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

14

ANALYSIS

15

As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge

16

Dembin’s R&R. (See R&R at 9 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than January

17

29, 2021).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned,

18

and contains no clear error. The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s

19

R&R in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.
CONCLUSION

20
21
22
23
24
25

In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R
(ECF No. 53) and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 42).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2021

26
27
28
2
19-CV-2254 TWR (MDD)