Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01463/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01463-1/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

09cv1463

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARNELL DUKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. SPENCE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv1463-L(WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Darnell Dukes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment violations for use of excessive

force against numerous Defendants. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

William V. Gallo for a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Civil Local Rule 72.3. 

Three of the seven Defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s

excessive force claims. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,

recommending the summary judgment motion be granted with respect to claims asserted against

Defendants K. Spence, K. Smith and J. Ponce. Plaintiff filed no objections.

A district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision on a dispositive

matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all

purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The court shall make a de novo

Case 3:09-cv-01463-MMA-WVG Document 58 Filed 06/15/11 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 09cv1463

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the

district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The

“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) (emphasis in the original); see

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003).

In the absence of any objections, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to claims asserted against Defendants

K. Spence, K. Smith and J. Ponce is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:09-cv-01463-MMA-WVG Document 58 Filed 06/15/11 Page 2 of 2