Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01419/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01419-3/pdf.json

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

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

FILED 

FEB 01 2018 

CLERK US DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DI STA IC F CALIFORNIA 

~::IAHfi"P-_..;,.,IL.t.~~D~EP~U~TY~ UNITED STATES DISTRIC,. 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 CLYDE REGINALD ELLIS, CASE NO. 16CV1419-WQH-NLS 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OFFICER BRADY,,._,SAN DIEGO 

SHERIFF'S OFFI1...,1:1 DOES 1-7, 

Defendants. 

16 HA YES, Judge: 

ORDER 

17 The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation 

18 issued by United States Magistrate Judge recommending that the motion for summary 

19 judgment filed by the Officer Brady (ECF No. 19) be granted. (ECF No. 36). 

20 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation 

21 of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 

22 U.S.C. § 636(b ). The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those 

23 portions of the report ... to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or 

24 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 

25 28 U.S.C. § 636(b ). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a 

26 Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 

27 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328F.3d1114, 

28 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane) ("Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates 

- 1 - 16cv1419-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:16-cv-01419-WQH-NLS Document 37 Filed 02/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
o 'I 

1 Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that 

2 the parties themselves accept as correct."). No party has filed an objection to the 

3 Report and Recommendation. 

4 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the 

5 submissions of the parties. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly 

6 recommended that the Court strike Plaintiffs declaration, grant the motion for 

7 summary judgment filed by Defendant Officer Brady, and dismiss the Doe Defendants. 

8 The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims as 

9 recommended by the Magistrate Judge. 

10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3 6) 

11 is adopted in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary 

12 judgment filed by the Officer Brady (ECF No. 19) is granted and the claims against 

13 Doe Defendants are dismissed. The Court declines to exercise supplemental 

14 jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment in favor 

15 of Defendants an~. 8j;~nst Plaintiff and to close the case. 

16 Dated: z/I~ 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WILLIAM Q. HA YES 

United States District Judge 

-2- 16cv1419-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:16-cv-01419-WQH-NLS Document 37 Filed 02/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2