Opinion
20cv584-JAH (MDD)
06-16-2022
KENNETH ST. SAUVER Plaintiff, v. BYRD-HUNT Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 28)
HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) submitted to this Court by the Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
When reviewing a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, the “district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made, and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” Love v. Scribner, 691 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1222 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). “However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court ‘need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the report and recommendation.'” Frando v. Gore, No. 21-CV-1434 JLS (KSC), 2022 WL 772963, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2022) (citations omitted).
aff'd sub nom. Love v. Cate, 449 Fed.Appx. 570 (9th Cir. 2011).
Here, potential objections were due by August 20, 2021, and replies by August 27, 2021. (ECF No. 28 at 18). The parties were “advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court's order.” Id. (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)). To date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has since expired. The Court has reviewed the Report and finds that it is “thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error.” Frando, 2022 WL 772963, at *1. In light of the absence of any objections, and Judge Dembin's well-reasoned analysis, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety and (1) GRANTS Defendant's motion as to all of Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims; (2) GRANTS Defendant's motion as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment by ordering another inmate to attack Plaintiff; and (3) DENIES Defendant's motion as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.