Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02955/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02955-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETE N. CAMARGO,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cv2955 DMS (PCL)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

vs. RECOMMENDATION

JESSIE ROTNER, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Pete N. Camargo, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging violation of his constitutional rights. He claims two Brawley Police

Department officers used excessive force when they arrested him. The case was referred to United

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

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

Defendants Torray Scales and Jesse Rotner filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b) arguing dismissal for failure to timely serve, or in the alternative, pursuant to Rule

12(b)(5), arguing service of summons should be quashed for failure to properly serve. Plaintiff did

not file an opposition. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending

to deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss, grant motion to quash service of process, and provide

additional time for service. Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a dispositive

matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. 

- 1 -

Case 3:11-cv-02955-DMS-PCL Document 54 Filed 10/15/12 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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The court shall make a de novo determination of

those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not

require review by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50

(1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in the original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone,

263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

In the absence of objections, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) is DENIED and their motion to under Rule

12(b)(5) to quash service of process is GRANTED. 

2. The United States Marshals Service shall comply with the provisions of the Report and

Recommendation regarding service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 12, 2012

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

cc: United States Marshals Service

- 2 -

Case 3:11-cv-02955-DMS-PCL Document 54 Filed 10/15/12 Page 2 of 2