Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00685/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00685-0/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 In the alternative, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the Fourteenth

Amendment and GMVA claims. 

06CV685

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN DURAN, Civil No. 06cv685-L(CAB)

 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

SHAWN D. EATMON, et al., 

 Defendants.

Plaintiff Ivan Duran, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint for violation of

his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for violation of the Gender Motivated Violence

Act (“GMVA”). The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann

Bencivengo for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil

Local Rule 72.3. On July 24, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,

recommending the complaint be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies without

prejudice and without leave to amend.1

 Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

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

Case 3:06-cv-00685-L-CAB Document 21 Filed 01/30/08 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 06CV685

for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The 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). 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. 

The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-00685-L-CAB Document 21 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 2