Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01053-6/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

ANTHONY D. DAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09CV1053 JLS (DHB)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

(2) GRANTING MOTION BY

DEFENDANT G. SIOTA TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF Nos. 151, 174) 

vs.

C. BUTLER, Correctional Captain, et

al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Defendant G. Siota’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Fourth Amended Complaint Filed April 29, 2011 [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)]. (ECF No.

151). Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Bartick’s Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) advising that the Court GRANT the motion. (ECF No. 174). 

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 - 09cv1053

Case 3:09-cv-01053-JLS-DHB Document 179 Filed 06/07/13 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 Bartick’s

R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and

contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Bartick’s

R&R in its entirety and GRANTS the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s claims against

Defendant G. Siota are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 7, 2013

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 2 - 09cv1053

Case 3:09-cv-01053-JLS-DHB Document 179 Filed 06/07/13 Page 2 of 2