Lee v. Fuga

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 3, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00125
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERRIS LEE, Case No.: 19-cv-125-AJB-MDD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 14 L. FUGA, et al., RECOMMENDATION; AND 15 Defendants. (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 16 MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 JUDGEMENT 18 19 (Doc. Nos. 15, 25)

20 Presently before the Court is Defendant K. Rodriguez’s motion for summary 21 judgment. (Doc. No. 15.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. 22 Dembin for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which was issued on August 28, 23 2019. (Doc. No. 25.) 24 The R&R recommends that Defendant’s motion be granted. (Id. at 10.) The parties 25 were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by September 13, 2019, and a reply 26 to the objections no later than September 20, 2019. (Id.) Plaintiff requested an extension of 27 time to file written objections. (Doc. No. 26.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an 28 1 || extension of time to file written objections to the R&R by January 20, 2020, and a reply to 2 || the objections no later than January 27, 2020. (Doc. No. 32.) 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 4 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 5 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 6 ||and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 7 || made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 8 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 9 || satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 10 recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 11 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 12 Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R. Having 13 || reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 14 || Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R in its 15 entirety; and (2) GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 16 17 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 |! Dated: February 3, 2020 | ZS i : Le 20 Hon. Anthony J.@Battaglia 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28