Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01578/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01578-2/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 - 06CV1578 WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY CHARLES CLEVELAND,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV1578 WQH (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

vs. RECOMMENDATION

T. DENNISON, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Barbara L.

Major recommending that the Court grant Defendant Schwarzenegger’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. #

45).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 8, 2006, Plaintiff Larry Charles Cleveland, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed

the Complaint in this matter and asserted violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with

Disabilities Act against numerous correctional officers and employees. (Doc. # 1). The Complaint

also named California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a Defendant. (Doc. # 1). On April 12,

2007, Defendant Schwarzenegger moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that (1) Defendant

Schwarzenegger is entitled to qualified immunity, and (2) Plaintiff sued Defendant Schwarzenegger

under an impermissible theory of respondeat superior. (Doc. # 24). On May 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed

an opposition to Defendant Schwarzenegger’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 42).

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 55 Filed 08/10/07 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 - 06CV1578 WQH (BLM)

On May 31, 2007, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Court grant Defendant Schwarzenegger’s motion to dismiss and deny as moot

Defendant Schwarzenegger’s motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity. (Doc. # 45).

Neither party filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district]

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to

which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

When no objections are filed, the district court need not review de novo the Report and

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

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may nevertheless,

“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); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal.

2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d. 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006).

DISCUSSION & ORDER

Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in this case, and

the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiff did not allege facts by which one could plausibly

infer that Defendant Schwarzenegger had knowledge of the alleged use of excessive force at the

Richard Donovan Correctional Facility or failed to perform some duty or responsibility that he was

legally required to do. Report and Recommendation at 6-8; see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965-68 (2007) (noting the “requirement of plausibility”). The Court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s bare allegation that Defendant Schwarzenegger “had actual

knowledge” of the use of excessive force is not plausible in light of the allegations, and as alleged, is

an impermissible attempt to hold Defendant Schwarzenegger liable by way of respondeat superior.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 45) is adopted in

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 55 Filed 08/10/07 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 - 06CV1578 WQH (BLM)

its entirety. Defendant Schwarzenegger’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 24) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date that this order is

stamped filed to amend the Complaint with respect to the allegations against Defendant

Schwarzenegger. If Plaintiff does not file an Amended Complaint, Defendant Schwarzenegger’s

dismissal will be with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 55 Filed 08/10/07 Page 3 of 3