Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00413/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00413-5/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 - 09cv413 WQH (BGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO NUNEZ

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv413 WQH (BGS)

ORDER

vs.

C/O F. RAMIREZ,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matters before the Court are the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

filed on February 1, 2011, recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the

Complaint (ECF No. 35).

BACKGROUND

On February 26, 2009, Plaintiff Eduardo Nunez, a pro se state prisoner initiated this

action by filing a complaint alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(ECF No. 1). On May 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint which

was denied for failure to provide the court with a copy of the proposed First Amended

Complaint. (ECF Nos. 23, 24). Plaintiff timely re-filed his Motion to Amend and

submitted a proposed First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 28). On October 20, 2010,

Defendant filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 34). 

On February 1, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint be granted. (ECF

Case 3:09-cv-00413-GPC-BGS Document 36 Filed 02/25/11 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 - 09cv413 WQH (BGS)

No. 35). Neither party filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. 

DISCUSSION

The duties of the district court in connection with the Report and Recommendation

of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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.” 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). The district court

need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which neither

party objects. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).

Neither party has objected to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35). The

Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Magistrate

Judge correctly determined that Petitioner should be permitted to file his First Amended

Complaint.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35) is

ADOPTED in its entirety and the proposed First Amended Complaint, in the record at ECF

No. 28-2, is the operative complaint in this action.

DATED: February 25, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00413-GPC-BGS Document 36 Filed 02/25/11 Page 2 of 2