Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02000/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02000-2/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 

HY _____~::"fl'(!., 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD RAYMOND RESSLER, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DANIEL PARAMO, et aI., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. ll-CV-2000 BEN (NLS) 

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S 

COMPLAINT 

[Docket Nos. 13, 20] 

Plaintiff Richard Raymond Ressler, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Docket No.1.) 

Defendants Daniel Paramo, Canlas, L.D. Zamora, and Elizabeth Romero (sued as Unknown Chief 

Medical Officer) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on January 3, 2012. (Docket No. 13.) 

Plaintiff filed an opposition (Docket No. 18), and Defendants filed a reply (Docket No. 19). 

Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted. (Docket No. 20.) 

Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due April 10, 2012. (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 - llcv2000 

Case 3:11-cv-02000-BEN-NLS Document 21 Filed 04/18/12 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 banc) 

(emphasis in original); 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. 

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

Recommendation. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted until May 25, 

2012 to file a First Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:A~OI2 

- 2 - Ilcv2000 

Case 3:11-cv-02000-BEN-NLS Document 21 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 2