Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02812/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02812-3/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

15-CV-2812 JLS (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

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY McGINNIS, P-19835,

Plaintiff,

v.

A.T. RAMOS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-CV-2812 JLS (JLB)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) 

GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF Nos. 9, 23)

Presently before the Court are (1) Defendant A.T. Ramos’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 

No. 9), and (2) Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation granting 

in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“R&R,” ECF No. 23).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 

U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In 

the absence of timely objection, however, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is 

no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. 

Case 3:15-cv-02812-JLS-JLB Document 27 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

15-CV-2812 JLS (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

28

Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 

206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Here, Plaintiff failed to file timely objections to Judge Burkhardt’s R&R. Having 

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

Accordingly, the Court (1) ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Burkhardt’s R&R (ECF No. 23),

and (2) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s MTD (ECF No. 9).

Plaintiff SHALL FILE an amended complaint, if any, on or before March 3, 2017. Failure 

to file an amended complaint by this date may result in dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02812-JLS-JLB Document 27 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2