Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01343/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01343-7/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 - 07cv1343

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISIDRO ROMAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07 CV 1343 JLS (POR)

ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PORTER’S

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 70, 78, 88, 89.) 

vs.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Isidro Roman, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against various Defendants. Plaintiff complains of events which allegedly occurred while he

was incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison and Kern Valley State Prison. His Third Amended

Complaint asserts causes of actions for violations of his First Amendment right to be free from

retaliation; Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers; Fourteenth Amendment right to due

process; and Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 

On September 4, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended

Complaint. (Doc. No. 70.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion on November 23, 2009 (Doc.

No. 76), and Defendants did not file a reply. On December 4, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for

summary judgment. (Doc. No. 78.) Defendants filed a response in opposition on February 5, 2010

and Plaintiff filed a reply on February 24, 2010. (Doc. Nos. 81, 83.) 

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 90 Filed 08/05/10 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 - 07cv1343

Magistrate Judge Porter issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) as to both the motion

to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment on June 24, 2010 and June 25, 2010, respectively.

(Doc. Nos. 88, 89.) Magistrate Judge Porter recommended this Court grant in part and deny in part

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 88.) In doing so, the only remaining causes of action would

be: 

(1) First Amendment Claim for Retaliation against Defendants Rush,

Barajas, Ibarra, Alderete, Lopez, Gonzalez, Rodriguez-Toledo, Martinez, Hernandez,

Teeters, Nutt, and Rodiles; and 

(2) Eighth Amendment Claim for Excessive Force against Defendants Martinez,

Hernandez, Teeters, Nutt, Rodiles, and Barajas.

(Id. at 20.) All other claims would be dismissed without leave to amend, except for Plaintiff’s due

process claim and request for injunctive relief which were recommended to be dismissed without

prejudice. (Id. at 19-20.) Magistrate Judge Porter further recommended this Court deny Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment without prejudice. (Doc. No. 89.) 

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)).

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to timely file objections to both of Magistrate Judge

Porter’s R&Rs, which were due on or before July 16, 2010. Having reviewed the R&Rs, the Court

finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Therefore, the Court adopts

both R&Rs in full. 

The Court hereby: 

(1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Porter’s Report and Recommendation on both Defendants’

motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, 

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 90 Filed 08/05/10 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 - 07cv1343

(2) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion to dismiss, 

(3) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and 

(4) GRANTS leave to amend those claims which are dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff may file a Fourth Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies stated in Magistrate

Judge Porter’s R&R on the motion to dismiss within 45 days of the date this Order is

electronically docketed.

DATED: August 5, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 90 Filed 08/05/10 Page 3 of 3