Villamor v. Metcalfe

Opinion

CHADWICK FABIAN VILLAMOR, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00940-APG-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Without v. Prejudice Defendants Bookman, Manzanedo, Campos, and Gillum OFFICER J. METCALFE, et al., [ECF No. 21] 7 Defendants 8 On December 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommended that I dismiss without 9 prejudice plaintiff Chadwick Villamor’s search and seizure claim against defendants Bookman, Manzanedo, Campos, and Gillum because by Villamor’s own allegations, the police officers had 11} probable cause. ECF No. 21 at 3-4. Villamor did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district 13} courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 15} Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 16} recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 17 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 21) is accepted, and plaintiff Chadwick Villamor’s search and seizure claim against defendants Bookman, Manzanedo, Campos, and Gillum is dismissed without prejudice. The 20] excessive force claim against defendants Metcalfe and Ketring remains pending. See ECF Nos. at 2;21 at2n.1. 22 DATED this 17th day of January, 2025. 2 - CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE