Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00412/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00412-4/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 - 09cv00412

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID EARL PARMER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv00412-DMS (NLS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[Docket Nos. 33, 35]

vs.

ALVAREZ, BADGE #75127; CUEVASPEDRO,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action for

violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The suit arises out of allegations that the

correctional officers violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual

punishment when they used excessive force against him. On April 27, 2010, Defendants filed a

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Doc. 33.) Defendants contend:

(1) they are entitled to qualified immunity; (2) Plaintiff failed to timely file the SAC; (3) the SAC

failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (4) Plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies. (Doc. 33 at 1-2.) On August 24, 2010, Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini

Case 3:09-cv-00412-DMS-NLS Document 36 Filed 10/15/10 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 - 09cv00412

issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending Defendants’ motion to dismiss be

granted. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R or to Defendants’ motion. 

When no objections are filed, the court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s

findings of fact and decide the motion on the applicable law. Campbell v. United States Dist. Court,

501 F. 2d 196, 201 (9th Cir. 1974); Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1217 (S.D. Cal. 2001).

After a full review, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation in full and GRANTS

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s SAC is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to

amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00412-DMS-NLS Document 36 Filed 10/15/10 Page 2 of 2