Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01910/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01910-1/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 On March 29, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint [doc. #14]

arguing that plaintiff had failed to exhaust all administrative remedies required by the Prison

Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e prior to filing this action in the federal court. The

Court denied that motion and required defendants to file an Answer to the Complaint, which

they did. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint to which the present motion to dismiss is

directed.

04cv1910

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALVIN DWAYNE HOLT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRIS HOWERTON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04-CV-1910-L(WMC)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH

PREJUDICE [doc. #70] and

DIRECTING ENTRY OF

JUDGMENT 

On September 22, 2004, plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed the above-captioned case. On

February 16, 2007, defendants moved to dismiss the case with prejudice.1

 [doc. #70] Plaintiff

opposed the motion and defendants filed a reply. 

On July 9, 2007, the magistrate judge submitted a Report and Recommendation ("Report)

to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which recommended that defendants’ motion to

dismiss be denied with prejudice. [doc. #73] The parties where given until July 27, 2007, in

which to file any objections to the Report. Neither party has done so and no party has requested

an extension of time in which to file objections.

Case 3:04-cv-01910-L-WMC Document 74 Filed 08/17/07 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 04cv1910

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court “shall 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.” Id. Under this statute, “the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 238 (2003).

In the Report, the magistrate judge recommended that the FAC be dismissed because

plaintiff did not and cannot state a claim for violation of his due process rights under the

Fourteenth or Eighth Amendments or for violation of the Equal Protection clause. The Court

concurs fully. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation in

its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting with prejudice defendants’ motion to

dismiss [doc. #70]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter

judgment in accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 17, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON.WILLIAM McCURINE, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:04-cv-01910-L-WMC Document 74 Filed 08/17/07 Page 2 of 2