Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01949/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01949-3/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 

FILED 

AUG 23 2.011 

CLERK U S DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DiSTRICT Of LlfORNIA 

DEPUTY BY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OMAR ERNEST EPPS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

N. GRANNIS, et aI., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 1O-cv-01949 BEN (MOD) 

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

[Docket Nos. 20, 59] 

Plaintiff Omar Ernest Epps, a prisoner at Calipatria State Prison proceeding pro se, filed a 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction on February 22, 2011. 

(Docket No. 20.) On May 20,2011, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (Docket No. 50.) 

On June 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a reply. (Docket No. 56.) 

Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Reliefbe denied. (Docket No. 

59.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due August 19,2011. (ld) Neither 

party filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is 

ADOPTED. 

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modifY the recommended disposition" of a magistrate 

judge on a dispositive matter. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). "[T]he district 

- 1 - lOcv01949 

Case 3:10-cv-01949-BEN-KSC Document 60 Filed 08/23/11 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 

judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly 

objected to." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge 

must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo ij objection is made, but 

not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane) 

(emphasis in original), cert denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 

1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, 

de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 

328 F.3d at 1121. Accordingly, the Court may deny Plaintiffs Motion on this basis alone. 

In the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Dembin's Report and 

Recommendation. Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August~11 

- 2- IOcvOl949 

Case 3:10-cv-01949-BEN-KSC Document 60 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 2