Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01833/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01833-0/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

04cv1833

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERTO VERA JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SAMBRANO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04cv1833-L(PCL)

ORDER (1) SUSTAINING IN PART

AND OVERRULING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, AND (2)

REJECTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Alberto Vera Jimenez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate

Judge Peter C. Lewis for a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. 

Plaintiff filed a motion styled as Notice of Motion: Discovery; Supporting Facts

(“Motion”). (See Docket No. 78.) The Magistrate Judge construed Plaintiff’s motion as a

request for a temporary restraining order against Defendants, and issued a Report and

Recommendation Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (“Report and

Recommendation”). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation

(“Objections”), to which Defendants did not respond. For the reasons which follow, Plaintiff’s

Objections are SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART. The Report and

Recommendation is REJECTED.

Case 3:04-cv-01833-L-PCL Document 118 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 3
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 If Plaintiff intended his Objections to the Report and Recommendation to also

serve as objections to the Magistrate Judge’s August 18, 2006 order denying Plaintiff’s

discovery motions, they are denied as untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

2 Plaintiff requests clarification of the March 30, 2006 order with respect to the

status of the various Defendants. As stated in the order, only Defendant Ryan has been

dismissed from the action. All other named Defendants remain.

2 04cv1833

The District Court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation concerning a dispositive pretrial motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district

judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after

additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific

written objection has been made in accordance with this rule.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C). “A judge of the court 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)(C). 

Plaintiff objected to the Report and Recommendation on the grounds he did not request a

temporary restraining order, but instead intended to address discovery issues. (Objections at 1-

2.) In this regard, Plaintiff’s Objections are well taken. Although Plaintiff’s Motion refers to the

relief he requested in his amended complaint, including request for injunctive relief, damages

and attorneys’ fees, the Motion expressly states Plaintiff’s intent is to bring certain allegations to

the Magistrate Judge’s attention for purposes of discovery. (See Motion at 1 & 7.) To this

extent, Plaintiff’s Objections are sustained. The Report and Recommendation is rejected. 

Plaintiff’s Motion is referred to the Magistrate Judge for consideration as a non-dispositive

pretrial matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).

To the extent Plaintiff’s Objections include requests for rulings other than adopting,

modifying or rejecting the Report and Recommendation, they are not properly before the court. 

In addition to objecting to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff requests reconsideration of

the Magistrate Judge’s denial of five of his prior discovery motions (Docket No. 60, 62, 64, 68

& 82),1

 transfer to another institution, appointment of counsel, denial of Defendants’ qualified

immunity defense, and clarification of a prior order.2

 Accordingly, in this regard, Plaintiff’s

Objections are overruled.

Case 3:04-cv-01833-L-PCL Document 118 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3 04cv1833

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Objections are SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART. 

2. The Report and Recommendation is REJECTED.

3. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion: Discovery; Supporting Facts (docket no. 78.) is

REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis for consideration as a non-dispositive pretrial

matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 5, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. PETER C. LEWIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:04-cv-01833-L-PCL Document 118 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 3