Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01505/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01505-3/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

1

These are the only defendants that have been served. 

- 1 - 09CV1505

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL DENHAM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv1505 JLS (WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. Nos. 39, 42.)

vs.

ARANDA, et al. ,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ J. Hernandez, E. Contreras, E. Marrero, P.

Cortez, K. Smith, and Matt Cate’s1

 motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc.

No. 39.) Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Gallo’s report and recommendation,

recommending the Court grant Defendants’ motion in part and deny the motion in part. (Doc. No.

42.)

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 report and recommendation. 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). However, in the absence of

Case 3:09-cv-01505-JLS-WVG Document 43 Filed 02/04/11 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

- 2 - 09CV1505

timely objection, 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 advisory committee’s note

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

Here, neither party has timely file objections to the report and recommendation. Having

reviewed it, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo’s report and

recommendation; (2) GRANTS WITH PREJUDICE Defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard

to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim and qualified immunity for Hernandez, Smith, and Cate;

(3) and DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against

Marrero, Cortez, and Contreras, and qualified immunity for the three aforementioned parties. In

short, Plaintiff’s retaliation claim survives against Marrero, Cortez, and Contreras. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 4, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01505-JLS-WVG Document 43 Filed 02/04/11 Page 2 of 2