Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02829/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02829-2/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

DANIEL G. HUFFMAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2829-LAB (DHB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS

[DOCKET NUMBER 14.]

vs.

DANIEL PARMO, et al.,

Defendant.

On January 8, 2013, Magistrate Judge David Bartick issued his report and

recommendation (“R&R”), recommending dismissal of the first amended complaint (“FAC”)

in part. Neither party 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 district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

objected to." Id. "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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

- 1 - 11cv2829

Case 3:11-cv-02829-LAB-DHB Document 21 Filed 07/19/13 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

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).

The Court therefore ADOPTS the unobjected-to R&R. Plaintiff Daniel Huffman’s

§ 1983 claims based on inadequate medical treatment and inhumane conditions of

confinement; his claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and his claims under the

Americans with Disabilities Act are DISMISSED. To the extent Defendant Daniel Parmo’s

motion to dismiss sought dismissal of Huffman’s § 1983 claims based on failure to protect

and excessive force theories, the motion is DENIED. 

Because most claims in the FAC have been dismissed, the FAC itself is DISMISSED.

Huffman, who is represented by counsel, shall file a second amended complaint (“SAC”)

including only the undismissed claims. He must do so no later than August 1, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 19, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cv2829

Case 3:11-cv-02829-LAB-DHB Document 21 Filed 07/19/13 Page 2 of 2