The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 JESSIE DORSEY, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00843-JAH-MDD
11 Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT
12 v. AND RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
13 P. SHAKIBA,
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
14 Defendant. JUDGMENT.
15
(ECF Nos. 22, 27).
16
17 On January 20, 2021, Plaintiff Jessie Dorsey (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner
18 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the operative amended civil rights complaint
19 (“FAC”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging an Eighth Amendment violation under the
20 United States Constitution at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Center (“RJD”) by
21 Defendant P. Shakiba (“Defendant”), a doctor at RJD. Plaintiff asserts Defendant was
22 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. On August 23, 2022, Defendant filed
23 a motion for summary judgment arguing (1) Plaintiff cannot establish the Defendant was
24 deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs; (2) Plaintiff’s damages are merely
25 speculative; and (3) Defendant has qualified immunity. (See generally, Mot.) Plaintiff did
26 not file an opposition to Defendant’s motion.
27 On January 23, 2023, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin submitted a Report and
28 Recommendation (the “Report”) to this Court, recommending that Defendant’s motion for
1 ||summary judgement be granted. (ECF. No. 35). Defendant has not filed an objection to
2 || the Report.
3 DISCUSSION
4 The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and
5 ||recommendation is set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28
6 ||U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and
7 recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions
8 the report... to which objection is made,” and may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole
9 ||or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §
10 || 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
11 When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo
12 ||review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416
13 || F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that “de novo review of a [magistrate judge’s
14 || report and recommendation] is only required when an objection is made”); United States
15 Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. §
16 636(b)(1)(c) “makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s
17 || findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise’’).
18 Here, any objections to the Report were due by February 6, 2023. To date, no
19 || objections have been presented before the Court. Thus, in the absence of any objections,
20 || the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated in the Report,
21 || which are incorporated herein by reference, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
22 ||(ECF No. 22), is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment reflecting the
23 || foregoing.
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25 ||DATED: February 27, 2023 VU
26 JOIN A. HOUSTON
27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28