Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01831/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01831-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS

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

DAVID RADEMAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. JUAREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiff 

David Rademaker (ECF No. 43) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the 

Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 57) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Injunctive Relief.

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 

recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 

n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 

Case 3:18-cv-01831-WQH-AGS Document 59 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS

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

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 

correct.”).

No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 

reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 57) is 

adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 43) is denied. 

Dated: February 19, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01831-WQH-AGS Document 59 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2