Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02090/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02090-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

13CV2090 BEN (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID B. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE BAILEY DETENTION 

CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 13CV2090 BEN (JLB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

[Docket Nos. 51, 52, 69]

Plaintiff David B. Turner, proceeding pro se, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. The case proceeded as to two claims against two Defendants, James Madsen and 

Jill Farris. Motions for summary judgment were filed by Plaintiff and Defendants. 

(Docket Nos. 51, 52.) Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion and a Reply 

in support of their Motion. (Docket Nos. 55, 61.) Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of his 

own Motion. (Docket No. 60.) 

On October 23, 2015, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a thoughtful and 

thorough Report and Recommendation recommending this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment and grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket 

No. 69.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due November 13, 

2015. (Id.) No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and 

Recommendation is ADOPTED.

Case 3:13-cv-02090-BEN-JLB Document 71 Filed 11/23/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

13CV2090 BEN (JLB)

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

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

However, “[t]he 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); see also 

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 

the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

The Court need not conduct a de novo review given the absence of objections. 

However, the Court has conducted a de novo review and fully ADOPTS the Report and 

Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk shall close the 

file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2015

Case 3:13-cv-02090-BEN-JLB Document 71 Filed 11/23/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2