Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00713/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00713-4/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 - 05CV0713WQH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARLUK KHAN MAYWEATHERS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05CV0713 WQH

ORDER

vs.

R. Q. HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.#93)

filed on August 1, 2007 by the United States Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.

BACKGROUND

On January 24, 2006, Plaintiff Karluk Khan Mayweathers, a state prisoner proceeding

pro se, filed a Third Amended Complaint against prison officials alleging civil rights violations

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On May 1, 2006, Defendants moved the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended

Complaint. 

On March 2, 2007, this Court dismissed with prejudice all of Plaintiff’s claims except

for the equal protection claim for violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to be

free from racial discrimination based upon the February 18, 2005 incident. Doc # 77.

On March 6, 2007, Plaintiff moved the Court for summary judgment in his favor on the

Case 3:05-cv-00713-WQH-CAB Document 106 Filed 10/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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 - 05CV0713WQH

only remaining claim for racial discrimination under the equal protection clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. # 80). Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment (Doc # 87).

On August 1, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Cathy Bencivengo issued a Report

and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied.

The Report and Recommendation concluded that the Plaintiff’s evidence does not show that

he was treated differently from other inmates based upon his race or establish that Defendants

had a policy of intentional racial segregation. 

The parties were ordered to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation on

or before August 27, 2007. 

Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

RULING OF THE COURT

The duties of the district court in connection with the Report and Recommendation of

a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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). The

failure to file objections relieves the trial court of its burden to give de novo review to factual

findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo. Brilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514,

1518 (9th Cir. 1989).

The Court has reviewed de novo all aspects of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge filed on August 1, 2007 and adopts all portions of the Report and

Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s evidence does not

show that he was treated differently from other inmates based upon his race or establish that

Defendants had a policy of intentional racial segregation; that any claim for injunctive relief

by Plaintiff is moot; and that the only remaining claim in this case is for an equal protection

violation.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts all portions of the Report and

Case 3:05-cv-00713-WQH-CAB Document 106 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 05CV0713WQH

Recommendation (Doc.#93) and that Plaintiff’s motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 80) is

DENIED.

DATED: October 26, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00713-WQH-CAB Document 106 Filed 10/26/07 Page 3 of 3