Opinion
2:23-cv-04296-SB-AJR
09-16-2024
GARY G. HAMPTON, JR., Plaintiff, v. J. MORALES, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HON. STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint, all the records and files herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 64, “Motion/Request to Object”). Though objecting generally, asserting that he is entitled to a jury trial on the claims in his Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has failed to raise any substantive, specific objection to the Report and Recommendation (R&R). Dkt. No. 64. The Court, therefore, need not conduct a de novo review of the R&R and adopts its findings and conclusions on that ground. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) (requiring that a party “file specific written objections” to the recommendations and mandating de novo review of only the portions “properly objected to”); see also Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc., 668 F.Supp.3d 907, 916 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (“Only objections that reference specific portions of the report and recommendation will trigger de novo review-general or conclusory objections do not suffice.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Ali v. Grounds, 236 F.Supp.3d 1241, 1249, 1266 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (limiting review to only the specific grounds petitioner pursued in his objections).
Although not required to conduct a de novo review, the Court has done so in an abundance of caution and, in the alternative, finds the recommendations of the U.S. Magistrate Judge to be well supported in fact and law. See Trieu v. Fox, No. 12-CV-03365-VBF, 2017 WL 522994, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017) (noting briefly that the court reviewed the report and recommendation that petitioner did not specifically object to and found no error); Harris v. Felker, No. 07-CV-221, 2009 WL 3148769, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2009) (same). Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims based on deliberate indifference to the risks of COVID-19, Plaintiff's due process claims based on allegedly false accusations resulting in an internal prison housing transfer, and Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Captain Schumacher and Sergeant Ramsey, are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against the Officer Defendants (Officers Morales, Ramirez, and Avalos) are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on Plaintiff at his current address of record and on counsel for the defendants who have appeared.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.