Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01604/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01604-1/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 - 07cv1604

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVIS A. AVILA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-CV-1604 JLS (POR)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION, (2)

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,

AND (3) GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 43, 111, 129)

vs.

DAVE KHATRI,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 43)

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 111) and Magistrate Judge Porter’s Report and

Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion and deny Plaintiff’s motion.

(Doc. No. 129.)

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

Case 3:07-cv-01604-JLS-POR Document 133 Filed 09/15/09 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 - 07cv1604

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)).

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Porter’s R&R.

Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and no contains no clear

error. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in full. The Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate

Judge Porter’s Report and Recommendation, (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment,

and (3) GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This order concludes the litigation in

this case. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 15, 2009

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01604-JLS-POR Document 133 Filed 09/15/09 Page 2 of 2