Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01166/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01166-2/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

STEVEN VOILES,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1166 JLS (BGS)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; (2)

GRANTING DEFENDANTS SAN

DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION

DEPARTMENT AND IAN ST.

JOHN’S MOTION TO DISMISS;

AND (3) GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS SAN DIEGO

COUNTY PROBATION

DEPARTMENT AND IAN ST.

JOHN’S MOTION TO STRIKE

(ECF No. 79)

vs.

JAMES A. REAVIS; IAN ST. JOHN;

and SAN DIEGO COUNTY

PROBATION DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Defendants San Diego County Probation

Department (“SDCPD”) and Ian St. John’s (“St.John,” and, collectively, “Defendants”)

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“MTD”) and Motion to

Strike (“MTS”). (ECF No. 72-1.) Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Skomal’s

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) advising that the Court grant Defendants’MTD,

and grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ MTS. (ECF No. 79.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a

district court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court

- 1 - 11cv1166

Case 3:11-cv-01166-JLS-BGS Document 82 Filed 10/09/14 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

must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection

is made,” and “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); see also

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, 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

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

Here, the parties have failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge

Skomal’s 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 Skomal’s R&R in its entirety, (2) GRANTS Defendants’ MTD, and

(3) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ MTS. 

Plaintiff Steven Voiles’ (“Plaintiff”) second cause of action for violation of the

Unruh Civil Rights Act against SDCPD and St. John is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 9, 2014

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cv1166

Case 3:11-cv-01166-JLS-BGS Document 82 Filed 10/09/14 Page 2 of 2