UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 8, 2010
ARDY CHADWICK, PLAINTIFF,
HALL, DEPUTY JOHN DOE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, (Doc. Nos. 2 & 21)
Presently before the Court are Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 2) and Magistrate Judge Battaglia's Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motion. (Doc. No. 21.)
Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. "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)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court need "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
In this case, Plaintiff has failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Battaglia's R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and no contains no clear error. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in full. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss and DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff MAY FILE an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies discussed in the R&R BY April 5, 2010. If no amended complaint is filed by that time, the Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.