Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02955/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02955-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETE N. CAMARGO,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cv2955 DMS (PCL)

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART

vs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

JESSIE ROTNER, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Pete N. Camargo, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging violation of his constitutional rights. He claims two Brawley Police

Department officers used excessive force when they arrested him. The case was referred to United

States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis for a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. 

On June 26, 2012, the motion to dismiss filed by the Brawley Police Department (“Brawley”)

was granted. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint no later than August 10, 2012

and allege Brawley’s policies and customs which caused the alleged constitutional violation, as

required by Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). (Docket no. 44.) As

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, the claims asserted against Brawley were dismissed with

prejudice on November 9, 2012. (Docket no. 56.) As to the claims asserted against the remaining two

Defendants, the Magistrate Judge set an early neutral evaluation conference. (Docket no. 57.) 

Although Plaintiff was aware of the conference, he did not appear. (See Docket no. 59.) The

- 1 -

Case 3:11-cv-02955-DMS-PCL Document 62 Filed 07/01/13 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

Magistrate Judge issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed and the case

dismissed for failure to prosecute the case for the preceding eight months and failure to appear at the

early neutral evaluation conference. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file a written response and did not appear

at the order to show cause hearing. On May 7, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and

recommendation recommending to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a dispositive

matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The court shall make a de novo determination of

those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not

require review by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50

(1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in the original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone,

263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

In the absence of any objections, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s

claims against Defendants Jesse Rotner and Torray Scales are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2013

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:11-cv-02955-DMS-PCL Document 62 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 2