Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02491/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02491-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY EUGENE BEST,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12CV2491 JLS (WMc)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

(2) GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

(ECF No. 17, 27)

vs.

D. URIBE, et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Defendants D. Bailey, J. Burgos, D. Camargo, J.

Diaz, S. Sandoval, and D. Uribe, Jr.’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Complaint,

(Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 17), and Magistrate Judge William McCurine’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) advising this Court to grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, (R&R, ECF No. 27). 

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

district court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court

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); see also

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence of timely objection, however, the Court

“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to

- 1 - 12cv2491

Case 3:12-cv-02491-JLS-WMC Document 34 Filed 11/27/13 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

accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (citing

Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to file timely objections to Magistrate Judge McCurine’s

R&R. Plaintiff’s original deadline for filing his objections was October 14, 2013. On

October 16, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time and reset the deadline for filing objections to November 15, 2013. Although more than two

months have elapsed since Magistrate Judge McCurine issued the R&R on September

23, 2013, Plaintiff has neglected to file any objections with the Court. Having

reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no

clear error. Accordingly, the Court (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge McCurine’s R&R,

and (2) GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The dismissal is WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, if he wishes, within 45 days

of the date that this Order is electronically docketed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 27, 2013

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv2491

Case 3:12-cv-02491-JLS-WMC Document 34 Filed 11/27/13 Page 2 of 2