Case 2:22-cv-00125-FWS-MAR Document 38 Filed 11/23/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:147

1 2

3

4 5 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 10 DEVONTE FIELDS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00125-FWS (MAR) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATION OF

13 J. PRITCHARD ET AL., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

14 Defendant(s). 15 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint (Dkt. 1), 18 19 the docket and records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United 20 States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 31) (“Report and Recommendation”). The records 21 on file include a letter written by Plaintiff Devonte Fields (“Plaintiff”) after the 22 Report and Recommendation was issued (“Plaintiff’s Letter”). (Dkt. 34.) The 23 records on file also contain a minute order by the magistrate judge stating “to the 24 extent Plaintiff’s [L]etter contends the Report and Recommendation misconstrued 25 facts or came to incorrect legal conclusions, this court construes these concerns as 26 Objections to the Report and Recommendation and will forward them to the 27 District Court at the termination of the objections period.” (Dkt. 35 at 3-4). 28 Case 2:22-cv-00125-FWS-MAR Document 38 Filed 11/23/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:148

1 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 2 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 3 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must 4 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 5 properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 6 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 7 magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written 8 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination 10 of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 11 to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. 12 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that 13 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 14 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no 15 objection has been made, arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See 16 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, 17 any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and 18 recommendations as provided by rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a 19 R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and 20 rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v. Haynes, 2021 WL 4744596, at *1 21 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021). 22 In the Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge makes several 23 findings, including the following: (1) “Plaintiff fails to allege facts that could show 24 the [Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”)] officers and [California Men’s Colony 25 (“CMC”) officers conspired to violate his constitutional rights,” and “[t]herefore, 26 Claim One is subject to dismissal, and the Doe Defendants from SVSP should be 27 terminated;” and (2) “Plaintiff fails to state a valid claim for retaliation,” and 28 2 Case 2:22-cv-00125-FWS-MAR Document 38 Filed 11/23/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:149

1 “[t]herefore, Claim Two against Defendants Pritchard, Jones, and Zeno is subject 2 to dismissal.” (Dkt. 31 at 7-8.) 3 The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Letter in accordance with the magistrate 4 judge’s statement that provides “to the extent Plaintiff’s [L]etter contends the 5 Report and Recommendation misconstrued facts or came to incorrect legal 6 conclusions, this court construes these concerns as Objections to the Report and 7 Recommendation and will forward them to the District Court at the termination of 8 the objections period.” (Dkt. 35 at 3-4). After conducting a de novo review of the 9 issues presented in Plaintiff’s Letter, the court agrees with each of the findings of 10 fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and Recommendation. 11 Moreover, based on its review, the court concludes the Report and 12 Recommendation does not misconstrue facts in the record nor does it come to 13 incorrect legal conclusions. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff’s Letter contains 14 proper objections to the Report and Recommendation, each of the Objections are 15 OVERRULED. 16 Accordingly, based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable 17 law, the court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, including each 18 of the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case 4:22-cv-00125-FWS-MAR Document 38 Filed 11/23/22 Page4of4 Page ID #:150

1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 3 (1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Claim 4 One and Claim Two; and 6 (2) Doe Defendants are TERMINATED as Defendants. 8 DATED: November 23, 2022 Ll pS /— 9 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28