Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02180/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02180-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARNELL DUKES,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-2180-BAS(BGS)

ORDER:

(1) APPROVING AND ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS

ENTIRETY; AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

[ECF Nos. 36, 47]

v.

D. FOSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff Darnell Dukes, a state prisoner proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint asserting civil-rights violations under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 10, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G.

Skomal C. Lewis issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that

this Court grant Defendants E. Alvarez, M. Chacon, and D. Gambold’s motion for

summary judgment. The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on December

29, 2014. (R&R 9:2–4.) To date, neither party has filed any objections.

- 1 - 12cv2180

Case 3:12-cv-02180-BAS-BGS Document 48 Filed 01/27/15 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

I. ANALYSIS

The court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he 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) (emphasisin original); see

also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding

that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the

magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district

judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves

accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This rule of law is well-established

within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000

n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an

objection is made to the R & R.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D.

Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither

party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols

v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on December 29, 2014. 

However, 28 days have passed since the deadline lapsed and no objections have been

filed. Neither party has requested additional time to file objections as well. 

Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the briefing

related to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the R&R, the Court

concludes that Judge Skomal’s reasoning is sound and accurate in concluding that

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be granted. (See R&R 7:1–8:18.) 

Therefore, the Court hereby APPROVES AND ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the

R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

- 2 - 12cv2180

Case 3:12-cv-02180-BAS-BGS Document 48 Filed 01/27/15 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

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court APPROVES

AND ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 47), and GRANTS

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 36). The Clerk of the Court is

directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 26, 2015

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv2180

Case 3:12-cv-02180-BAS-BGS Document 48 Filed 01/27/15 Page 3 of 3