Wilson v. Unknown Oceanside Police Officers

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 TEDDY LeROY WILSON, Jr., Case No.: 23-CV-270 TWR (DDL) Inmate #23700343, 12 ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT Plaintiff, 13 & RECOMMENDATION, vs. (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 14 MOTION FOR SUMMARY UNKNOWN Oceanside Police Officers; 15 JUDGMENT, (3) DIRECTING UNKNOWN Tri City Hospital Staff; CLERK TO ENTER JUDGMENT, 16 UNKNOWN Oceanside Fire Department (4) DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST Staff; UNKNOWN Oceanside Trainers 17 UNKNOWN PARTIES, AND and Supervisors, (5) FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 18 Defendants. CAUSE WHY HIS CLAIMS 19 AGAINST DEFENDANT NELSON SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 20

21 (ECF Nos. 60, 94)

22 23 Presently before the Court is Defendants City of Oceanside; Sgt. Jeff Brandt; 24 Michelle Alarcon; and Officers Daniel Post, Aaron Weirich, Billy Walker, Natalie Laser, 25 and Dustin Lundy’ Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment (“Mot.,” 26 ECF No. 60). Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner has issued a Report and 27 Recommendation for Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 28 (“R&R,” ECF No. 94). Having carefully reviewed the Parties’ arguments, Magistrate 1 Judge Leshner’s R&R, the record, and the law, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge 2 Leshner’s R&R in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion, as follows. 4 Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the 5 factual and procedural history underlying the instant Motion. (See R&R at 2–3, 4–13.) 6 This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein. 8 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending 9 before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those 10 portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, 11 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 12 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United 13 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is 14 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 15 in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note 16 to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. 17 denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 18 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 19 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 21 As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge 22 Leshner’s R&R. (See R&R at 34 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than 23 January 31, 2025).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well- 24 reasoned, and contains no clear error. The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge 25 Leshner’s R&R in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / I CONCLUSION 2 In light of the foregoing, the Court: 3 (1) ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R (ECF No. 94); 4 (2) GRANTS Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 60); 5 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment: 6 (a) in favor of Defendants City of Oceanside; Sergeant Jeff Brandt; 7 Officers Daniel Post, Aaron Weirich, Billy Walker, Natalie Laser, and Dustin 8 Lundy; and Field Evidence Technician Michelle Alarcon as to Plaintiffs claims 9 arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1983; and 10 (b) in Defendants’ favor as to all other causes of action, to the extent they 11 survived the Court’s initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 12 1915A(b), (see ECF No. 5); 13 (4) DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all claims against “unknown Tri City 14 || Hospital Staff’ and “unknown Oceanside Fire and Paramedics;” and 15 (5) ORDERS Plaintiff Teddy LeRoy Wilson, Jr. TO SHOW CAUSE within 16 || twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order why his claims against Probation Officer T. 17 || Nelson should not be dismissed for failure timely to effect service of process pursuant to 18 ||Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and Civil Local Rule 4.1(b). Jf Plaintiff fails 19 || adequately to respond to this Order within the time provided, the Court will enter a final 20 || order of dismissal without prejudice as to Defendant Nelson for failure timely to effect 21 ||service pursuant to Rule 4(m) and Civil Local Rules 4.1 and 41.1(b) and for failure to 22 ||\comply with this District’s Civil Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 23 || this Court’s Order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.1(a). 25 || Dated: February 6, 2025 26 [ Od) (2 re 17 Honorable Todd WwW. Robinson United States District Judge 28