From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Huffman v. Parmo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 19, 2013
CASE NO. 11cv2829-LAB (DHB) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. 11cv2829-LAB (DHB)

07-19-2013

DANIEL G. HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL PARMO, et al., Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND


ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS


[DOCKET NUMBER 14.]

On January 8, 2013, Magistrate Judge David Bartick issued his report and recommendation ("R&R"), recommending dismissal of the first amended complaint ("FAC") in part. Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the time permitted.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Id. "A judge of the court 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). The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). "The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." Id. When no objections are filed, the Court need not review de novo the Report and Recommendation. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).

The Court therefore ADOPTS the unobjected-to R&R. Plaintiff Daniel Huffman's § 1983 claims based on inadequate medical treatment and inhumane conditions of confinement; his claims under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, and his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act are DISMISSED. To the extent Defendant Daniel Parmo's motion to dismiss sought dismissal of Huffman's § 1983 claims based on failure to protect and excessive force theories, the motion is DENIED.

Because most claims in the FAC have been dismissed, the FAC itself is DISMISSED. Huffman, who is represented by counsel, shall file a second amended complaint ("SAC") including only the undismissed claims. He must do so no later than August 1, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Huffman v. Parmo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 19, 2013
CASE NO. 11cv2829-LAB (DHB) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2013)
Case details for

Huffman v. Parmo

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL G. HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL PARMO, et al., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 19, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 11cv2829-LAB (DHB) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2013)

Citing Cases

Washington v. O'Dell

"To show that a prisoner has been subject to cruel and unusual punishment by an officer's failure to protect…