McCloud v. Bird-Hunt

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIE MCCLOUD, Case No.: 3:19-cv-00618-WQH-JLB

12 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 T. BIRD-HUNT, et al., 15

16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF 19 No. 10) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 20 17). 21 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 22 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 24 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 25 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 26 district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 27 which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 28 1 ||}2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 2 ||(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 3 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 4 || correct.”). 5 The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. The Court has 6 || reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is 8 || ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF No. 10) is 9 ||GRANTED. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 10 || Dated: February 11, 2020 itt Z. A a 1] Hon. William Q. Hayes 2 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28