Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00618/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00618-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:19-cv-00618-WQH-JLB

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

WILLIE MCCLOUD,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. BIRD-HUNT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00618-WQH-JLB

AMENDED ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The Order (ECF No. 18) and Clerk’s Judgment (ECF No. 19) filed on February 12, 

2020 are HEREBY VACATED. 

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF 

No. 10) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 

17).

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). The district judge 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). The 

Case 3:19-cv-00618-TWR-JLB Document 20 Filed 02/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-00618-WQH-JLB

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

district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 

which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 

(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 

correct.”).

The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. The Court has 

reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is 

ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF No. 10) is 

GRANTED. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend 

Plaintiff’s due process claim against Defendant Lewis and Plaintiff’s claims for damages 

against all Defendants in their official capacities. 

Dated: February 12, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00618-TWR-JLB Document 20 Filed 02/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2