Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01674/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01674-1/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

- 1 - 08cv1674

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OBIE STEVEN ANTHONY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-CV-1674 JLS (RBB)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS

(Doc. Nos. 30 & 33)

vs.

LEW, MATTHEW CATE, LARRY SMALL,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court are Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No.

30) and Magistrate Judge Ruben Brooks’s Report and Recommendation recommending that the

motion be granted. (Doc. No. 33.) Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1) set forth the duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. “The district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States

v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980).

However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court need “only satisfy itself that there is no clear

error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing

Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and Recommendation. Moreover, according to Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01674-JLS-RBB Document 36 Filed 06/16/10 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 - 08cv1674

Brooks, “Plaintiff stated that he had no objection to Defendants’ Motion and also agreed to dismiss

both [Defendant] Cate and [Defendant] Small.” (Doc. No. 33 at 1.) Therefore the Court ADOPTS

the Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES Defendants Cate and Small.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 16, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01674-JLS-RBB Document 36 Filed 06/16/10 Page 2 of 2