Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01735/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01735-6/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

07cv1735

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE L. McKENNEY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HERNANDEZ et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv1735-L(POR)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH

AMENDMENT CLAIM

Plaintiff Joe L. McKenney, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging numerous constitutional violations under the

Eighth Amendment, First Amendment and the Due Process Clause. The case was referred to

United States Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter for a report and recommendation in accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. 

In the first amended complaint, the operative complaint in this action, Plaintiff alleged

Eighth Amendment claims based on excessive force, deliberate indifference to safety and

deprivation of outdoor recreation, and a First Amendment claim for denial of meaningful access

to the courts. Defendants moved to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of

outdoor exercise based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge

issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. 

Defendants filed no objections.

Case 3:07-cv-01735-CAB-DHB Document 99 Filed 06/15/11 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 07cv1735

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

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

purposes. 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). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the

district court when no objections are filed. 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 any objections, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-01735-CAB-DHB Document 99 Filed 06/15/11 Page 2 of 2