Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01735/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01735-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

07cv1735

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE L. McKENNEY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HERNANDEZ et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv1735-L(POR)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Joe L. McKenney, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging numerous constitutional violations under the

Eighth Amendment, First Amendment and the Due Process Clause. The case was referred to

United States Louisa S. Porter for a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. 

On September 9, 2008 the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to

dismiss with leave to amend. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint alleging an

Eighth Amendment claims based on excessive force, deliberate indifference to safety and

deprivation of outdoor recreation and a First Amendment claim for denial of meaningful access

to the courts. Defendants moved to dismiss these claims as to Defendant Robert J. Hernandez

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

/ / / / /

Case 3:07-cv-01735-CAB-DHB Document 24 Filed 07/07/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 07cv1735

Recommendation, recommending Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied in part and granted

in part with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed no objections.

A district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision on a dispositive

matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all

purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the

district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The

“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in the original); see

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003).

In the absence of any objections, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as

follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force

is granted and the claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to Defendant

Hernandez only;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate

indifference to safety is granted and the claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO

AMEND as to Defendant Hernandez only;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of

outdoor recreation is DENIED; and

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim for denial of

meaningful access to the courts is granted and the claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND as to Defendant Hernandez only.

If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he must, no later than forty-five (45) days

from the date this Order is "Filed," file a Second Amended Complaint which cures the

Case 3:07-cv-01735-CAB-DHB Document 24 Filed 07/07/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 07cv1735

deficiencies of pleading as stated in the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's Second

Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the any complaint filed in

this action. See Civil Local Rule 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in

the Second Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Defendants shall file a response as provided in Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 15(a)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 7, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-01735-CAB-DHB Document 24 Filed 07/07/09 Page 3 of 3