Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01733/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01733-3/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

KEVIN LAMARR ANDRES, Civil No. 13cv1733 DMS (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

vs.

C.O. MARSHALL, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Kevin Lamarr Andres, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging use of excessive force, interference with

access to the courts, and violation of procedural due process rights. The action was

referred to Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal for a report and recommendation

(“R&R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). 

In an R&R dated December 10, 2014, based on the defense of failure to exhaust

administrative remedies, Judge Skomal recommended granting Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment with leave to amend. During the pendency of objections to the R&R,

on January 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on February 6, 2015, a

corrected amended complaint. On February 25, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to

dismiss the amended complaint. On March 25, 2015, the Court adopted the December 10,

2014 R&R insofar it recommended dismissal of the initial complaint for failure to

1

Case 3:13-cv-01733-DMS-BGS Document 103 Filed 06/11/15 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

exhaust, and rejected it insofar as it granted leave to amend. On April 9, 2014, Judge

Skomal issued an R&R recommending the dismissal of the amended complaint. No

objections to the R&R have been filed.

 A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" 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). When no objections are filed, the de

novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require review by the district court

under a lesser standard. 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).

In the absence of objections, the Court adopts the R&R. Accordingly, the amended

complaint is dismissed in its entirety without leave to amend and without prejudice to

refiling the action upon proper exhaustion of administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 10, 2015

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:13-cv-01733-DMS-BGS Document 103 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 2