Opinion
Case No.: 14-cv-1397-BEN (PCL)
04-29-2016
DAVID ROBERT BELL, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff David Robert Bell initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights related to his medical care while incarcerated. On November 9, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 68.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition, and Defendant filed a Reply. (Docket Nos. 78, 79.)
On March 29, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a thorough and thoughtful Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion. (Docket No. 83.) Objections were due by April 26, 2016. (Id.) No objections have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. ///
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F,3d 992m 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
This Court has reviewed the record in this matter. In the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' Motion is granted as to Plaintiff's Third, Fifth, and Sixth causes of action. In addition, Defendants Glynn, Walker, and Seeley are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all claims against them. Finally, Plaintiff's request for additional discovery is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 4/29, 2016
/s/ _________
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge