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.

Eduardo Nunez v. C/O F. Ramirez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 25, 2011

EDUARDO NUNEZ
PLAINTIFF,
v.
C/O F. RAMIREZ, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge

ORDER

The matters before the Court are the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed on February 1, 2011, recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 35).

BACKGROUND

On February 26, 2009, Plaintiff Eduardo Nunez, a pro se state prisoner initiated this action by filing a complaint alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On May 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint which was denied for failure to provide the court with a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 23, 24). Plaintiff timely re-filed his Motion to Amend and submitted a proposed First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 28). On October 20, 2010, Defendant filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 34).

On February 1, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint be granted. (ECF No. 35). Neither party filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation.

DISCUSSION

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); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).

Neither party has objected to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Petitioner should be permitted to file his First Amended Complaint.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35) is ADOPTEDin its entirety and the proposed First Amended Complaint, in the record at ECF No. 28-2, is the operative complaint in this action.

WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge

20110225

© 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.