1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN F. GOODLOW, Case No.: 20-cv-02038-AJB-AGS Plaintiff, 12 ORDER: v. 13 (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND CAMACHO, et al., 14 RECOMMENDATION; Defendants.

15 (2) GRANTING IN PART AND 16 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 17 JUDGMENT; AND 18 (3) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 19 CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS 20 GONZALEZ, SALAS, AND MARIN WITHOUT PREJUDICE 21

22 (Doc. Nos. 23, 79)

23 Presently before the Court is Defendants Gonzalez, Salas, Marin, and Sigala’s 24 (“Defendants”) motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. No. 23.) The Court referred 25 the matter to Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler for a Report and Recommendation 26 (“R&R”), which was issued on February 3, 2022. (Doc. No. 79.) The R&R recommends 27 granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. (Id. 28 1 7.) The parties were instructed to file written objections with the Court on or before 2 || February 18, 2022, and a reply to the objections no later than March 3, 2022. Ud.) 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and

(b)(1) set forth a district 4 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 5 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 6 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 7 made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1); United States v. Remsing,

||614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 9 || satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 10 recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment; 11 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 12 Neither party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R. Thus, 13 || having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear 14 || error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R in 15 entirety; and (2) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion 16 || for partial summary judgment. Specifically, the Court GRANTS summary judgment on all 17 ||claims against Defendants Gonzalez, Salas, and Marin based on Plaintiffs failure to 18 exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 19 ||Defendants Gonzalez, Salas, and Marin are therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT 20 || PREJUDICE. See Lira v. Herrera,

(9th Cir. 2005) (noting a 21 ||judgment on the basis of failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be without 22 || prejudice). The Court further DENIES summary judgment on all claims against Defendant 23 || Sigala. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: March 1, 2022 © g 26 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 27 United States District Judge 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28