Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01397/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01397-3/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 

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 

FiLED 

APR 29 2016 

CLERK us DISTRIC r COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY EPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID ROBERT BELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, 

et aI., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 14-cv-1397-BEN (PCL) 

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff David Robert Bell initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging 

violations of his civil rights related to his medical care while incarcerated. On November 

9,2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 68.) Plaintiff 

filed an Opposition, and Defendant filed a Reply. (Docket Nos. 78, 79.) 

On March 29,2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a thorough and thoughtful Report 

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

Defendants'Motion. (Docket No. 83.) Objections were due by April 26, 2016. (Id.) No 

objections have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the Report and 

Recommendation is ADOPTED. 

III 

14-cv-1397-BEN (peL) 

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 87 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 2
" ' 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

l3 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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)(I). "[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 992m 1000 n.l3 (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. 

This Court has reviewed the record in this matter. In the absence of any 

objections, the Court fully ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Defendants' 

Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' Motion is granted as 

to Plaintiff's Third, Fifth, and Sixth causes of action. In addition, Defendants Glynn, 

Walker, and Seeley are entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw on all claims against them. 

Finally, Plaintiff's request for additional discovery is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: , 2016 -++-''''''+--

H. rT. Benitez 

United States District Judge 

2 

14-cv-1397-BEN (peL) 

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 87 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 2