Hearn v. Warden

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 2, 2025
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00255
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 William HEARN, Case No.: 22-cv-0255-AGS-DDL 4 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND 5 v. GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO 6 WARDEN, et al., DISMISS (ECF 77) WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 7 Defendants. 8 On December 11, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, 9 urging this Court to grant in part defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend and 10 giving plaintiff William Hearn until December 20, 2024, to object. (See ECF 99, at 17.) To 11 date, Hearn has not objected. The district judge “must review the magistrate judge’s 12 findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 13 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 18 U.S.C. 14 § 636(b)). Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the Court finds it 15 well-reasoned and without any clear error. So, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s 16 recommendation: 17 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF 77) is GRANTED IN PART. Hearn may 18 proceed on his First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Cepeda only. 19 Hearn may also proceed on his Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against 20 defendants Cepeda, Bravo-Mancilla, and Alfaro only. All other claims are 21 dismissed without leave to amend. 22 2. Defendants must answer Hearn’s remaining claims no later than 14 days from the 23 date of this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). 24 3. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of the magistrate judge’s report and 25 recommendation (ECF 99) along with this order. 26 27 28 1 || Dated: January 2, 2025

3 Hon. rew G. Schopler 4 United States District Judge

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28