Opinion
No. 03:10-CV-32-HU
03-19-2012
TROY ALLEN BIRKES, Plaintiff, v. DON MILLS, P. MAINE, T. O'MALLEY, T. SWEET, R. GEER, S. BLACKETTER, RICK COURSEY, Defendants.
Troy Allen Birkes, Pro Se Federal Correctional Institution Attorney for Plaintiff Jacqueline Sadker Kamins Samuel A. Kubernick Department of Justice Attorneys for Defendants
ORDER
Troy Allen Birkes, Pro Se
Federal Correctional Institution
Attorney for Plaintiff
Jacqueline Sadker Kamins
Samuel A. Kubernick
Department of Justice
Attorneys for Defendants HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Hubel issued a Findings and Recommendation (#64) on September 28, 2011, in which he recommends that this Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#37) on the grounds that no constitutional violation has occurred in this case. Judge Hubel also recommended that this Court decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state constitutional claim. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.
Plaintiff Birkes did not file any objections to the Findings and Recommendation, despite being granted a 45-day extension to file any objections. Dkt. #76.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (#64). Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#37) is granted and this Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state constitutional claim. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice (#77) is denied as moot in light of my adoption of the Findings and Recommendation. Any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge