UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 26, 2007
KARLUK KHAN MAYWEATHERS, PLAINTIFF,
R. Q. HICKMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.#93) filed on August 1, 2007 by the United States Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.
On January 24, 2006, Plaintiff Karluk Khan Mayweathers, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Third Amended Complaint against prison officials alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 1, 2006, Defendants moved the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint.
On March 2, 2007, this Court dismissed with prejudice all of Plaintiff's claims except for the equal protection claim for violation of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from racial discrimination based upon the February 18, 2005 incident. Doc # 77.
On March 6, 2007, Plaintiff moved the Court for summary judgment in his favor on the only remaining claim for racial discrimination under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. # 80). Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc # 87).
On August 1, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Cathy Bencivengo issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied. The Report and Recommendation concluded that the Plaintiff's evidence does not show that he was treated differently from other inmates based upon his race or establish that Defendants had a policy of intentional racial segregation.
The parties were ordered to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before August 27, 2007.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
RULING OF THE COURT
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). The failure to file objections relieves the trial court of its burden to give de novo review to factual findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo. Brilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989).
The Court has reviewed de novo all aspects of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on August 1, 2007 and adopts all portions of the Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff's evidence does not show that he was treated differently from other inmates based upon his race or establish that Defendants had a policy of intentional racial segregation; that any claim for injunctive relief by Plaintiff is moot; and that the only remaining claim in this case is for an equal protection violation.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts all portions of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.#93) and that Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 80) is DENIED.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.