Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00946/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00946-0/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 - 09cv946

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARDY CHADWICK,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-946 JLS (AJB)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION, AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 2 & 21)

vs.

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

HALL, DEPUTY JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court are Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 2) and Magistrate

Judge Battaglia’s Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Defendants’

motion. (Doc. No. 21.)

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

duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. “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.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614,

617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). However, in the absence of

timely objection, the Court need “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court,

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Case 3:09-cv-00946-JLS-AJB Document 22 Filed 03/08/10 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 - 09cv946

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Battaglia’s R&R.

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

error. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in full. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’

motion to dismiss and DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff MAY FILE

an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies discussed in the R&R BY April 5, 2010. If no

amended complaint is filed by that time, the Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 8, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00946-JLS-AJB Document 22 Filed 03/08/10 Page 2 of 2