Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00689/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00689-4/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

3:16-cv-0689-BEN-JMA

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

DOYLE WAYNE DAVIS,

CDCR #34318,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-0689-BEN-JMA

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Doyle Wayne Davis is incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 

Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego. He is proceeding pro se and has filed a complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by 

Defendant Zamudio (ECF No. 22), Defendant Butcher (ECF No. 24), Defendants Silva, 

Jackson, Pasha, Walker, Rodriguez, Self, Pool, Glynn, Sosa, Paramo, Roberts, and Stout 

(ECF No. 46), and Defendant Bedane (ECF No. 61). 

On June 13, 2017, the Honorable Jan M. Adler issued a thoughtful and thorough 

Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in 

part Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 76). Any of the parties could file 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 78 Filed 07/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-0689-BEN-JMA

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

objections to the Report and Recommendation by July 5, 2017. That deadline has now 

passed and no party has filed objections.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

However, “[t]he 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); see also 

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 

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

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. (Docket No. 76). The 

Court orders as follows:

1. Defendant Zamudio’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (ECF No. 22);

2. Defendant Butcher’s motion to dismiss is DENIED with respect to his 

argument that he is not a state actor and that Plaintiff’s first, third, and fourth 

claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations, but GRANTED on the 

ground that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

(ECF No. 24); and

3. Defendants Silva, Jackson, Pasha, Walker, Rodriguez, Self, Pool, Glynn, Sosa, 

Paramo, Roberts, Stout, and Bedane’s motions to dismiss are DENIED as to 

their argument that Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by claim preclusion. (ECF 

Nos. 46, 61). However, moving Defendants Jackson, Walker, Rodriguez, Self, 

Pool, Glynn, Sosa, Paramo, Roberts, Stout, and Bedane’s motions to dismiss are 

GRANTED on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. (ECF Nos. 46, 61).

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 78 Filed 07/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-0689-BEN-JMA

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

The case continues against Defendants Silva and Pasha.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 78 Filed 07/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3