Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00552/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00552-2/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

08cv552

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEODORE E. NEWBERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. BARRERAS, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv552 L (PCL)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING

WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION

TO DISMISS [doc. #9]; and

GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

THE COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Theodore E. Newberry filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that

alleged defendants violated his constitutional right under the Eighth Amendment to be free from

cruel and unusual punishment for deliberately ignoring plaintiff’s medical needs and pain. The

matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis, for a Report and

Recommendation ("Report"). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. The

magistrate judge issued a Report recommending the motion be granted and requiring objections,

if any, to the Report to be filed no later than December 29, 2008. [doc. #17] To date, no

objections have been filed. 

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

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

Case 3:08-cv-00552-L-PCL Document 18 Filed 01/09/09 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 08cv552

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. ReynaTapia, 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) (applying Reyna-Tapia to

habeas review). 

Having reviewed the Report and no objections having been filed, defendants’ motion to

dismiss without prejudice is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that

complies with the issues raised in the Report. If plaintiff intends to prosecute this action, the

amended complaint shall be filed and served on opposing counsel no later than February 6,

2009. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 9, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. PETER C. LEWIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-00552-L-PCL Document 18 Filed 01/09/09 Page 2 of 2