Opinion
Case No.: 15-CV-2812 JLS (JLB)
02-03-2017
ANTHONY McGINNIS, P-19835, Plaintiff, v. A.T. RAMOS, Defendant.
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF Nos. 9, 23)
Presently before the Court are (1) Defendant A.T. Ramos's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9), and (2) Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt's Report and Recommendation granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ("R&R," ECF No. 23).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's R&R. 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 judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence of timely objection, however, the Court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
Here, Plaintiff failed to file timely objections to Judge Burkhardt's R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is well reasoned and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court (1) ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Burkhardt's R&R (ECF No. 23), and (2) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's MTD (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff SHALL FILE an amended complaint, if any, on or before March 3, 2017. Failure to file an amended complaint by this date may result in dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 3, 2017
/s/_________
Hon. Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge