Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01822/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01822-0/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

- 1 - 07cv1822

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TED DARNELL DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1822 JM(POR)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE:

GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS 

vs.

O. ALVARADO; M. HARRIS, A.

ROBERTS; and W. MITCHELL,

Defendants.

On February 6, 2009 Magistrate Judge Porter entered a Report and Recommendation to Grant

in Part and Deny in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“R & R”). Plaintiff filed Objections to the

R & R. Defendants neither filed Objections nor a reply to Plaintiff’s Objections.

The R & R denied Defendants motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies,

denied the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Alvarado and Harris,

and granted the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Mitchell. The R

& R did not address any asserted claims against Defendant Roberts because Plaintiff has yet to

effectuate service on this Defendant. 

In his Objections, Plaintiff seeks an order to compel Defendants to disclose the identity and/or

location of Defendant Roberts. As this Objection does not undermine or challenge the R & R in any

manner, the court denies this Objection. To the extent Plaintiff desires to file any discovery related

motion to discover the identity or location of Defendant Roberts, the court notes that all such motions

Case 3:07-cv-01822-JM-POR Document 26 Filed 03/09/09 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 - 07cv1822

must be originally brought before the Magistrate assigned to the case, and not this court. See Local

Rule 26.1(c).

In sum, the court adopts the R & R in its entirety and denies Plaintiff’s Objections.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 9, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-01822-JM-POR Document 26 Filed 03/09/09 Page 2 of 2