Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01578/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01578-7/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 - 06cv1578WQH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY CHARLES CLEVELAND,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1578WQH (BLM)

ORDER

vs.

T. DENNISON, et. al.,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

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

70) filed on August 14, 2008 by Magistrate Judge Major recommending that this Court grant

the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 68) filed by the only remaining Defendant

Moreno and dismiss this action. No party has filed an objection to the Report and

Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a 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 may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the

[district] 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); see Thomas v. Arn, 474

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 72 Filed 10/09/08 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

- 2 - 06cv1578WQH

U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the

Report and Recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

CONCLUSION

This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court

concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiff is not entitled to bring

an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Moreno in his individual capacity to

vindicate rights created under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vinson v.

Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2002). The Report and Recommendation filed on

August 14, 2008 (Doc. # 70) is adopted by this Court in its entirety.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Moreno’s Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings (Doc. # 68) is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in this action against

plaintiff and in favor of Defendants.

DATED: October 9, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 72 Filed 10/09/08 Page 2 of 2