Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00357/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00357-1/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

RONALD CHRISMAN,

Plaitniff,

v.

A VERKOUTERN, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Case No: 11cv357 AJB (MDD)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No. 37);

AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS HICE

AND SAMANIEGO’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (Doc. No.

32).

Presently before the Court is Defendants R. Hice and E. Samaniego’s (collectively,

“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment.1

 (Doc. No. 32.) On May 10, 2013, the

Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin for Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). The R&R recommended that the Court grant Defendants’

motion for summary judgment in light of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony that Defendants

Hice and Samaniego were not present when Plaintiff was allegedly assaulted. The parties

were instructed to file written objections to the R&R no later than August 13, 2013, and

replies no later than August 20, 2013. The Parties were further advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on

appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

1

 Plaintiff filed a non-opposition to Defendant Hice and Samaniego’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 34.)

1 11cv357 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-00357-AJB-MDD Document 42 Filed 08/21/13 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

DISCUSSION

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

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

district judge 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

finding or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see

also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the

absence of timely objection(s), 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. Civ. P.

72(b), Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Here, despite being represented by counsel, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have

filed timely objections to the R&R. Moreover, Plaintiff filed a non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 34.) Thus, having reviewed the R&R,

the Court finds the report is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL Magistrate Judge Dembin’s Report and

Recommendation, (Doc. No. 37), and GRANTS Defendant Hice and Samaniego’s motion

for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 32). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 20, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

2 11cv357 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-00357-AJB-MDD Document 42 Filed 08/21/13 Page 2 of 2