The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CDCR'S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS CERROS', LANDEROS', AND DISMISS NAVARRO'S MOTION TO
Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation moved to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment Grounds, as did Defendants Cerros, Landos, and Navarro. These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Ruben Brooks for report and recommendation.
Judge Brooks issued his report and recommendation (the "R&R") on September 13, 2012. Plaintiff Rachee Willis initially objected to the R&R, but later withdrew his objections and stated that he did not object to it. (Docket no. 23.) No Defendant has filed objections to the R&R within the time permitted.
A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the R&R's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). "The statute 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." Id. When no objections are filed, the Court need not review de novo the Report and Recommendation. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).
Because neither party objects to the R&R, the Court ADOPTS it. The CDCR's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. All claims against the CDCR are DISMISSED, and the CDCR is DISMISSED as a party. The motion by Defendants Cerros, Landeros, and Navarro to dismiss Eighth Amendment claims against them is DENIED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...