Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aaron D. Johnson v. v. M. Almager

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 28, 2011

AARON D. JOHNSON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
V. M. ALMAGER, ET AL.,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; [Doc. No. 78] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANTS' [Doc. No. 69]

Plaintiff Aaron D. Johnson, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of rights guaranteed to him by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. After being duly notified of the requirements and consequences of the motion, Plaintiff filed an opposition, see Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), to which Defendants replied. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. for preparation of a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. Judge McCurine issued a well-reasoned and thorough Report recommending the Court grant Defendants' motion, and set a deadline of December 21, 2010 for the filing of objections. To date, neither party has objected to the Report and Recommendation, nor has there been any request for additional time to file objections.

A district court's duties concerning a magistrate judge's report and recommendation and any objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that 28 U.S.C. 636(b) (1) (C) "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") (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Arizona 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge's report). This rule of law is well established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.") (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1121).

Notwithstanding Plaintiff's failure to object, the Court has reviewed the submissions of the parties and the Report and Recommendation. Finding the Report thorough and accurate and the Recommendation sound in its analysis and conclusions, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and terminate the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110128

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.