Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01891/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01891-1/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 - 10cv1891

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIM DALE DAVIS, 

CDCR #J-41150,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV1891 JLS (RBB)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMPLAINT

(ECF Nos. 17, 24) 

vs.

R. POWELL; T. BOREM; KAY OURS;

LARRY SMALLS; R. SUTTON; 

G.J. JANDA; C. BUTLER; BUILTMAN; 

D. FOSTON,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Defendants’R. Powell, T. Borem, Kay Ours, Larry Smalls, R.

Sutton, G.J. Janda, C. Butler, Buildman, and D. Foston’s motion to dismiss complaint. (Mot. to

Dismiss, ECF. No. 17). Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Brooks’s report and

recommendation, recommending the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss complaint. (R&R,

ECF No. 24) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court’s

duties 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76

Case 3:10-cv-01891-CAB-RBB Document 25 Filed 09/15/11 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 - 10cv1891

(1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 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 in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note

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

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the report and recommendation. Having

reviewed it, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brooks’s report and

recommendation; (2) GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss complaint. 

Per Magistrate Judge Brooks’s report and recommendation, Plaintiff’s claims against

Defendants Sutton, Butler, Builteman, Janda, and Foston in counts one and two are DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE; Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Small as to count two is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Plaintiff’s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of

2000 (“RLUIPA”) claims against Defendants Powell, Borem, and Ours are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims against Defendants Small, Powell, Borem,

and Ours, in their individual capacities, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims for monetary damages against all Defendants in their official and

individual capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s request to amend his First Amendment claims against the Defendants in

counts one and two is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 15, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01891-CAB-RBB Document 25 Filed 09/15/11 Page 2 of 2