Cavazos v. Garilaso

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT CAVAZOS, Case No.: 3:21-cv-01156-JAH-LR

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 GARILASO, et al., RECOMMENDATION; AND 15 Defendants. (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 16 MOTION FOR TRANSFER 17 [ECF NOS. 61, 65] 18

19 For the reasons set for forth below, the Court ADOPTS the Report and 20 Recommendation (“R&R”) submitted by the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b)(1), (ECF No. 65), and Plaintiff Robert Cavazo’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for transfer, 22 (ECF No. 61), is hereby DENIED. 23 On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at California Medical 24 Facility (“CMF”) and proceeding pro se, filed a second amended civil rights complaint 25 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple correctional officers at R.J. Donovan State 26 Prison (“RJD”), alleging deliberate indifference and failure to protect claims in violation 27 of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff’s factual allegations center around 28 1 incidents where he claims he was attacked and injured by fellow inmates while he was 2 incarcerated at RJD. (Id.) 3 On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an order transferring him 4 from California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-SAC”), where he was housed at the time 5 the motion was filed (“Motion”).1 (ECF No. 61). The Motion states that prison officials 6 at CSP-SAC have impeded him from litigating this case, describing multiple incidents in 7 which Plaintiff claims to have been limited in his legal research time at CSP-SAC’s law 8 library, as well as incidents in which prison officials have allowed or encouraged other 9 inmates to argue with Plaintiff to create an excuse to file disciplinary charges against him. 10 (Id. at 1-4). Plaintiff argues that he should no longer be housed at CSP-SAC due to these 11 conditions. (Id. at 4-5). 12 On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address stating that he is no 13 longer housed at CSP-SAC, and he updated his address to CMF. (ECF No. 64.) 14 On May 5, 2023, Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. submitted the R&R to this 15 Court recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied. (ECF No. 65). 16 DISCUSSION 17 The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and 18 recommendation is set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and 20 recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions 21 of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole 22 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 24 When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo 25 review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 26 27 1 Plaintiff’s Motion includes a supplement to his motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF 28 1 || F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that “de novo review of a [magistrate judge’s 2 ||report and recommendation] is only required when an objection is made”); United States 3 || v. Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 4 ||636(b)(1)(c) “makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 5 || findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise’). This rule 6 || of law is well established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Hasan v. Cates, No. 7 || 11-cv—1416, 2011 WL 2470495 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2011) (Whelan, T.) (adopting in its 8 |/entirety, and without review, a report and recommendation because neither party filed 9 || objections to the report despite having the opportunity to do so); accord Ziemann v. Cash, 10 || No. 11-cv—2496, 2012 WL 5954657 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012) (Benitez, R.); Rinaldi v. 11 || Poulos, No. 08—cv—1637, 2010 WL 4117471 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2010) (Lorenz, J.). 12 Here, any objections to the R&R were due by May 25, 2023. To date, no objections 13 ||have been filed. Thus, in the absence of any objections, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and 14 || Plaintiff's Motion for transfer is DENIED. 15 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 For the reasons stated in the R&R, which are incorporated herein by reference, 17 || Plaintiff's Motion for transfer, (ECF No. 61), is DENIED. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || DATED: May 30, 2023 20 | | M | | = 21 9 JC A. HOUSTON ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28