Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02245/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02245-2/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

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

JEFFERY LEE MOURNING,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 18cv2245-WQH-RBM

v. ORDER

WILLIAM GORE, et al.,

 

 Defendant. 

 

 

 

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

issued by the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 12) recommending that

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 6) be denied; Plaintiff’s Motion

for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 8) be granted; Plaintiff’s Request for Class Certification

(ECF No. 8) be denied; and Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 10) be

denied. 

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

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) 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). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a

- 1 - 18cv2245-WQH-RBM

Case 3:18-cv-02245-WQH-RBM Document 14 Filed 04/25/19 PageID.<pageID> 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

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 [Federal Magistrates Act]

requires a district judge to 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. 12)

is adopted in its entirety except with regard to Plaintiff’s deadline for filing an amended

complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 6) is denied without prejudice; Plaintiff's Request for Class Certification

(ECF No. 8) is denied; Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 10) is denied

without prejudice; Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 8) is granted. 

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, complete in itself without reference to the

superseded pleading, within thirty days of the entry of this Order. 

DATED: April 25, 2019

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 18cv2245-WQH-RBM

Case 3:18-cv-02245-WQH-RBM Document 14 Filed 04/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2