Gary Grant Hampton, Jr. v. J. Morales

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 16, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-04296
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY G. HAMPTON, JR., Case No. 2:23-cv-04296-SB-AJR

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 J. MORALES, ET AL., STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended 18 Complaint, all the records and files herein, the Report and Recommendation of the 19 United States Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and 20 Recommendation (Dkt. No. 64, “Motion/Request to Object”). Though objecting 21 generally, asserting that he is entitled to a jury trial on the claims in his Third 22 Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has failed to raise any substantive, specific objection 23 to the Report and Recommendation (R&R). Dkt. No. 64. The Court, therefore, 24 need not conduct a de novo review of the R&R and adopts its findings and 25 conclusions on that ground. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (requiring that a party “file 26 specific written objections” to the recommendations and mandating de novo review 27 of only the portions “properly objected to”); see also Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc., 668 28 F. Supp. 3d 907, 916 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (“Only objections that reference specific 1 portions of the report and recommendation will trigger de novo review—general or 2 conclusory objections do not suffice.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Ali v. 3 Grounds, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1249, 1266 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (limiting review to 4 only the specific grounds petitioner pursued in his objections). 5 Although not required to conduct a de novo review, the Court has done so in 6 an abundance of caution and, in the alternative, finds the recommendations of the 7 U.S. Magistrate Judge to be well supported in fact and law. See Trieu v. Fox, No. 8 12-CV-03365-VBF, 2017 WL 522994, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017) (noting 9 briefly that the court reviewed the report and recommendation that petitioner did 10 not specifically object to and found no error); Harris v. Felker, No. 07-CV-221, 11 2009 WL 3148769, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2009) (same). Accordingly, the Court 12 accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 13 Magistrate Judge. 14 15 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims based on 16 deliberate indifference to the risks of COVID-19, Plaintiff’s due process claims 17 based on allegedly false accusations resulting in an internal prison housing transfer, 18 and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Captain 19 Schumacher and Sergeant Ramsey, are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO 20 AMEND. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive 22 force claims against the Officer Defendants (Officers Morales, Ramirez, and 23 Avalos) are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall have thirty 24 (30) days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint. 25 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and 27 the Judgment herein on Plaintiff at his current address of record and on counsel for 28 1 the defendants who have appeared. 2 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 3 4 DATED: September 16, 2024

5 HON. STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28