UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 29, 2008
LARRY DARNELL ARTHUR, PLAINTIFF,
R. TORRES, CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT; F. GONZALES, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; J. FLORES, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Defendant Flores also moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim against him. On December 21, 2007, Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted. No objections have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision" of a Magistrate Judge on a dispositive matter. F.R.C.P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Moreover, "the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." Id. "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 . . . . Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), cert denied, 157 L.Ed.2d 182 (2003) (emphasis in original).
In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly considered the Plaintiff's arguments and determined that Plaintiff failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies, and that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Defendant Flores. This Court adopts in full the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.