Filed: Oct. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND IAN ST. JOHN'S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND IAN ST. JOHN'S MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF No. 79) JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge. Presently before the Court is Defendants San Diego County Probation Department ("SDCPD") and Ian St. John's ("St. John," and, collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Dismis
Summary: ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND IAN ST. JOHN'S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND IAN ST. JOHN'S MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF No. 79) JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge. Presently before the Court is Defendants San Diego County Probation Department ("SDCPD") and Ian St. John's ("St. John," and, collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss..
More
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND IAN ST. JOHN'S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND IAN ST. JOHN'S MOTION TO STRIKE
(ECF No. 79)
JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendants San Diego County Probation Department ("SDCPD") and Ian St. John's ("St. John," and, collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint ("MTD") and Motion to Strike ("MTS"). (ECF No. 72-1.) Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Skomal's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") advising that the Court grant Defendants' MTD, and grant in part and deny in part Defendants' MTS. (ECF No. 79.)
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). 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 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, the parties have failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Skomal's R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Skomal's R&R in its entirety, (2) GRANTS Defendants' MTD, and (3) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' MTS.
Plaintiff Steven Voiles' ("Plaintiff") second cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against SDCPD and St. John is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
