United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 64]
CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO, District Judge.
Plaintiff Steve Crump is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 10.] On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed "as to the retaliation claims only" as described in his FAC. [Doc. No. 21.] On August 25, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed on the retaliation claims and dismissed all other claims contained in the FAC. [Doc. No. 24.]
On December 19, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies ("MSJ"). [Doc. No. 30.] Plaintiff filed oppositions on December 24, 2014, January 6, 2015, and January 22, 2015. [Doc. Nos. 32, 34 & 37.] On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff also filed documents to support his position that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. [Doc. No. 44.] In addition, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on January 21, 2015. [Doc. No. 36.] Defendants file a reply on February 11, 2015. [Doc. No. 45.] On April 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge Major prepared a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Motion for Summary Judgment be granted; and that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint be denied. To date, no objections have been filed, nor have there been any requests for an extension of time in which to file objections.
A district judge's duties concerning a magistrate judge's R&R and a respondent's 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 judge is not required to review the magistrate judge's R&R. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. However, "[t]he 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." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Id. 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 Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 64]; (2) GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 [Doc. No. 30]; and (3) DENIES Plaintiff's motion to amend the petition [Doc. No. 36].
The Clerk of the Court shall entered judgment in favor of Defendants ...