Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02245/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02245-3/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

- 1 - 10cv2245

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO RIVERA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2245-LAB (BGS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

D. URIBE, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Ricardo Rivera filed his complaint on October 28, 2010, bringing claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants then moved to dismiss, and their motion was referred to

Magistrate Judge Bernard Skomal for report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636. On February 7, 2012, Judge Skomal issued his report and recommendation (the

“R&R”), recommending that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend, because

Rivera had not exhausted his administrative remedies and it was too late for him to do so.

The R&R also recommended declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rivera’s

state law claims, since his federal claims would be dismissed. The R&R required any party

wishing to object to file objections within seventeen days of being served with the R&R.

Since then, no objections have been filed.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must

Case 3:10-cv-02245-LAB-BGS Document 14 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 2
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 - 10cv2245

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

objected to." Id. "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When,

as here, no objections are filed, the Court need not review de novo the Report and

Recommendation. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it to be correct. Because neither party

objects to it, the Court ADOPTS it. This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 5, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02245-LAB-BGS Document 14 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 2