UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 15, 2011
JIM DALE DAVIS, CDCR #J-41150,
R. POWELL; T. BOREM; KAY OURS; LARRY
SMALLS; R. SUTTON; G.J. JANDA; C. BUTLER; BUILTMAN; D. FOSTON, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. SammartinoUnited States District Judge
(1) ADOPTING REPORT MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' (ECF Nos. 17, 24)
Presently before the Court is Defendants'R. Powell, T. Borem, Kay Ours, Larry Smalls, R. Sutton, G.J. Janda, C. Butler, Buildman, and D. Foston's motion to dismiss complaint. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF. No. 17). Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Brooks's report and recommendation, recommending the Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss complaint. (R&R, ECF No. 24)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court's duties 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 judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673--76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 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 in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the report and recommendation. Having reviewed it, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brooks's report and recommendation; (2) GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss complaint.
Per Magistrate Judge Brooks's report and recommendation, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Sutton, Butler, Builteman, Janda, and Foston in counts one and two are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Small as to count two is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Plaintiff's Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") claims against Defendants Powell, Borem, and Ours are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims against Defendants Small, Powell, Borem, and Ours, in their individual capacities, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims for monetary damages against all Defendants in their official and individual capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Finally, Plaintiff's request to amend his First Amendment claims against the Defendants in counts one and two is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.