Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01296/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01296-1/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 

14cv1296-CAB (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVE CRUMP, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

CAPTAIN S. SANCHEZ; DR. 

WILLIAMS; OFFICER R. DAVIS; 

and, A. NANQUIL, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 14cv1296-CAB (BLM) 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION 

[Doc. No. 64] 

Plaintiff Steve Crump is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 4, 2014, 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 10.] On August 11, 2014, 

Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed “as to the retaliation claims only” as described 

in his FAC. [Doc. No. 21.] On August 25, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:14-cv-01296-CAB-BLM Document 75 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

14cv1296-CAB (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

motion to proceed on the retaliation claims and dismissed all other claims 

contained in the FAC. [Doc. No. 24.] 

On December 19, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 

for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (“MSJ”). [Doc. No. 30.] Plaintiff 

filed oppositions on December 24, 2014, January 6, 2015, and January 22, 2015. 

[Doc. Nos. 32, 34 & 37.] On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff also filed documents to 

support his position that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. [Doc. No. 

44.] In addition, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on 

January 21, 2015. [Doc. No. 36.] Defendants file a reply on February 11, 2015. 

[Doc. No. 45.] On April 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge Major prepared a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Motion for Summary Judgment 

be granted; and that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint be 

denied. To date, no objections have been filed, nor have there been any requests 

for an extension of time in which to file objections. 

A district judge’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s R&R and a 

respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the 

district judge is not required to review the magistrate judge’s R&R. The Court 

reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

Case 3:14-cv-01296-CAB-BLM Document 75 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

14cv1296-CAB (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. 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, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 

(emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district 

judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties 

themselves accept as correct.” Id. In the absence of timely objection, the Court 

“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order 

to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note 

(citing Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed 

the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear 

error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major’s 

Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 64]; (2) GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 [Doc. No. 30]; and (3) DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the petition [Doc. No. 36]. 

/ / / / 

/ / / / 

/ / / / 

/ / / / 

Case 3:14-cv-01296-CAB-BLM Document 75 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

14cv1296-CAB (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

The Clerk of the Court shall entered judgment in favor of Defendants and 

close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 1, 2015 

Case 3:14-cv-01296-CAB-BLM Document 75 Filed 06/01/15 Page 4 of 4