Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00901/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00901-1/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

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

WILLIAM M. GATES,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17CV901-WQH-BGS

v. ORDER

H. GOMEZ, Correctional Officer; H.

FLORENDO, Psych Tech/Nurse; and

C. GODINEZ, Sergeant/Correctional

Officers,

 

 Defendants. 

 

 

 

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

issued by United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 17) recommending that the

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) be granted and Defendants’

motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) be granted in part and denied in part. 

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b). 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 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a

Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416

- 1 - 17cv901-WQH-BGS

Case 3:17-cv-00901-WQH-BGS Document 18 Filed 08/28/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act]

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the

parties themselves accept as correct.”).

No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court

has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the

parties. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17)

is adopted in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to

dismiss (ECF No. 13) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in the Report and

Recommendation and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) is

granted. This case is dismissed. The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment in favor of

Defendants and against Plaintiff and to close the case. 

DATED: August 28, 2018

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 17cv901-WQH-BGS

Case 3:17-cv-00901-WQH-BGS Document 18 Filed 08/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2