Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01598/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01598-2/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 - 07cv1598

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1598 BEN (PCL)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

vs.

TERRENCE F. SHEEHY, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a First Amended Complaint against several prison staff

members for violations of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California state law. 

Defendants moved to dismiss on various grounds. On October 24, 2008, Magistrate Judge Peter

C. Lewis issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the Motion to Dismiss be granted. 

No objection has been filed. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) provides: “A judge of the [district] court shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Thus, the governing 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 original) (“Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires

a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves

accept as correct.”); Wang v. - Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) ( “Of course, de

Case 3:07-cv-01598-BEN-PCL Document 31 Filed 11/21/08 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 - 07cv1598

novo review of a [Report] is only required when an objection is made to the [Report].” ). 

This Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, without prejudice. 

Plaintiff is given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to cure any deficiencies,

providing such pleading is filed no later than January 5, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 21, 2009 ______________________________

ROGER T. BENITEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01598-BEN-PCL Document 31 Filed 11/21/08 Page 2 of 2