Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00125/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00125-1/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

19-cv-125-AJB-MDD

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

PERRIS LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. FUGA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-125-AJB-MDD

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGEMENT

(Doc. Nos. 15, 25)

Presently before the Court is Defendant K. Rodriguez’s motion for summary 

judgment. (Doc. No. 15.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. 

Dembin for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which was issued on August 28, 

2019. (Doc. No. 25.)

The R&R recommends that Defendant’s motion be granted. (Id. at 10.) The parties 

were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by September 13, 2019, and a reply 

to the objections no later than September 20, 2019. (Id.) Plaintiff requested an extension of 

time to file written objections. (Doc. No. 26.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an 

Case 3:19-cv-00125-AJB-MDD Document 40 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-cv-125-AJB-MDD

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

extension of time to file written objections to the R&R by January 20, 2020, and a reply to 

the objections no later than January 27, 2020. (Doc. No. 32.)

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

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 

614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 

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

Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R. Having 

reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R in its 

entirety; and (2) GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 3, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00125-AJB-MDD Document 40 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2