Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01683/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01683-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RACHEE A. WILLIS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1683-LAB (RBB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

CDCR’S MOTION TO DISMISS;

AND

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS

CERROS’, LANDEROS’, AND

NAVARRO’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

vs.

MS. MCEWEN, et al.,

Defendant.

Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation moved to dismiss

on Eleventh Amendment Grounds, as did Defendants Cerros, Landos, and Navarro. These

motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Ruben Brooks for report and recommendation.

Judge Brooks issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”) on September 13,

2012. Plaintiff Rachee Willis initially objected to the R&R, but later withdrew his objections

and stated that he did not object to it. (Docket no. 23.) No Defendant has filed objections

to the R&R within the time permitted.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the R&R’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). 

- 1 - 11cv1683

Case 3:11-cv-01683-LAB-RBB Document 24 Filed 01/16/13 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

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific written

objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc). "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." Id. When

no objections are filed, the Court need not review de novo the Report and Recommendation.

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).

Because neither party objects to the R&R, the Court ADOPTS it. The CDCR’s motion

to dismiss is GRANTED. All claims against the CDCR are DISMISSED, and the CDCR is

DISMISSED as a party. The motion by Defendants Cerros, Landeros, and Navarro to

dismiss Eighth Amendment claims against them is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 15, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cv1683

Case 3:11-cv-01683-LAB-RBB Document 24 Filed 01/16/13 Page 2 of 2