UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 9, 2009
TED DARNELL DANIELS, PLAINTIFF,
O. ALVARADO; M. HARRIS, A. ROBERTS; AND W. MITCHELL, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
On February 6, 2009 Magistrate Judge Porter entered a Report and Recommendation to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("R & R"). Plaintiff filed Objections to the R & R. Defendants neither filed Objections nor a reply to Plaintiff's Objections.
The R & R denied Defendants motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, denied the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Alvarado and Harris, and granted the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Mitchell. The R & R did not address any asserted claims against Defendant Roberts because Plaintiff has yet to effectuate service on this Defendant.
In his Objections, Plaintiff seeks an order to compel Defendants to disclose the identity and/or location of Defendant Roberts. As this Objection does not undermine or challenge the R & R in any manner, the court denies this Objection. To the extent Plaintiff desires to file any discovery related motion to discover the identity or location of Defendant Roberts, the court notes that all such motions must be originally brought before the Magistrate assigned to the case, and not this court. See Local Rule 26.1(c).
In sum, the court adopts the R & R in its entirety and denies Plaintiff's Objections.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.