ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (ECF NO. 186);

(2) DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE, (ECF NO. 143);

(3) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, (ECF NO. 144);

(4) DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO DISMISS, (ECF NO. 146)

GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.

On August 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when San Diego County Sheriff's deputies assaulted Plaintiff while in custody. (ECF No. 1.) The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Skomal for disposition on report and recommendation.

On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint ("FAC"), asserting a new cause of action for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against newly named defendants Clarissa Cawagas, RN ("Cawagas") and John Serra, MD ("Serra"). (ECF No. 117.)

On November 21, 2013, Cawagas and Serra filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike Plaintiff's allegations against them because, while Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his Complaint, Plaintiff was not granted leave to assert claims against either Cawagas or Serra for infringement of Plaintiff's right to adequate medical care. (ECF No. 143.)

Also on November 21, 2013, Cawagas filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff's claim against her for failure to state a claim for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. (ECF No. 144.) On the same day, Serra filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike Plaintiff's allegations against Serra or, in the alternative, to dismiss Plaintiff's allegations against Serra for failure to state claim. (ECF No. 146.)

Plaintiff filed oppositions to the foregoing motions. (ECF Nos. 148, 151.) Plaintiff requests leave to amend his FAC.

On March 27, 2014, Magistrate Judge Skomal issued a report and recommendation ("Report"), recommending Plaintiff's claim for deliberate indifference be dismissed as to Cawagas and Serra with leave to amend, and that Cawagas' and Serra's motions to strike be denied. (ECF No. 186.) Magistrate Judge Skomal set an initial deadline of April 18, 2014, to file any objections to the Report, (id.), and this Court extended the objection deadline to June 27, 2014, (ECF No. 210). To date, the Court has received no objections to the Report.

A district judge's role in reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, a district judge "shall 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]." When no objections are filed, the Court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge's findings of fact and decide the motion on the applicable law. Campbell v. United States Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974); Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1217 (S.D. Cal. 2001). Under such circumstances, the Ninth Circuit has held that "a failure to file objections only relieves the trial court of its burden to give de novo review to factual findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo." Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)).

Because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court assumes the correctness of Magistrate Judge Skomal's factual findings and adopts them in full. The Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Skomal's legal conclusions and finds the Report provides a cogent analysis of Cawagas and Serra's Motion to Strike, Cawagas' Motion to Dismiss, and Serra's Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Motion to Dismiss.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: