Turley v. Laqunas

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MACEY E. TURELY, Jr., Case No.: 23cv0231-LL-BLM CDCR #BF-8128, 12 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND Plaintiff, 13 RECOMMEDNATION [ECF No. 25] v. AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 14 MOTION FOR SUMMARY LAQUNAS, ASU Floor Staff Correctional 15 JUDGMENT [ECF No. 22] Officer, 16 Defendant. 17

18 19 Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major’s Report and 20 Recommendation (“R&R”), which recommends granting Defendant’s Motion for 21 Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 22, 25. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 23 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 24 district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report” to which 25 “objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 26 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also 27 United States. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 28 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need 1 |} only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 2 recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1983 3 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206) (9th Cir. 1974)); see also 4 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge 5 ||must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 6 || made, but not otherwise.”’). 7 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Major’s R&R. 8 || See ECF No. 25, at 14 (objections due by November 12, 2024). Having reviewed the R&R, 9 || the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 10 Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major’s R&R! and GRANTS 11 ||Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. This Order concludes the litigation in this 12 ||matter. The Clerk shall close the case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: November 20, 2024 NO 15 QT 16 Honorable Linda Lopez 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 ||! The Court already “DISMISS[ED] Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical care claim 99 regarding his stomach pain against Defendant Laqunas sua sponte for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1) and 23 1915A(b)(1).” ECF No. 3, at 10. Instead of amending his complaint, Plaintiff chose to “proceed with his Eighth Amendment claim regarding his suicide attempt against Defendant Laqunas only,” which was the subject of Defendant’s Motion for Summary 25 ||Judgment. See id.; ECF No. 22; ECF No. 25, at 13-14. Thus, although Magistrate Judge 26 Major correctly notes that this Court did not reiterate the dismissal of the stomach-pain claim against Defendant Laqunas in a subsequent order reiterating the dismissal of all 27 claims against all other defendants, it has remained dismissed and requires no re-dismissal. 28 See ECF No. 3, at 10; ECF No. 5, at 2; ECF No. 25, at 13-14.