Wilson v. Segovia

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUCIOUS WILSON, Case No.: 19-CV-2254 TWR (MDD)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT & 13 v. RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 14 SGT. SEGOVIA, et al., MOTION FOR SUMMARY 15 Defendants. JUDGMENT.

16 (ECF Nos. 42, 53) 17

18 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 19 (“Motion,” ECF No. 42). Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin has issued a Report and 20 Recommendation on the Motion (“R&R,” ECF No. 53), recommending that the Court grant 21 the Motion. Having carefully reviewed the Parties’ arguments, Magistrate Judge Dembin’s 22 R&R, the underlying administrative record, and the law, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate 23 Judge Dembin’s R&R in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the 26 factual and procedural history underlying the instant Petition. (See R&R at 1–3.) This 27 Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein. 28 / / / 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending 3 || before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those 4 || portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, 5 ||in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 6 || U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United 7 || States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is 8 || filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 9 ||in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note 10 || to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. 11 || denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 12 Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 13 ||judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’). 14 ANALYSIS 15 As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge 16 || Dembin’s R&R. (See R&R at 9 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than January 17 2021).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, 18 ||and contains no clear error. The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s 19 in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. 20 CONCLUSION 21 In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R 22 ||(ECF No. 53) and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 42). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: November 18, 2021 25 “Ten 12 D (ore 2%6 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 54 United States District Judge 28