Rademaker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DAVID RADEMAKER, Case No.: 18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v. J. JUAREZ, et al., Defendants. HAYES, Judge: The matters before the Court are the Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiff David Rademaker (ECF No. 43) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 57) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief. The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “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.” U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 26 …