1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Case No. 5:21-cv-01741-FWS-DFM 11

12 TERRENCE HAWKINS, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,

13 CONCLUSIONS, AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 v.

16 MOSQUEDA, 17

18 Defendant.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural History

2 Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s June 23, 2023, Report and 3 Recommendation (“Report and Recommendation”) (Dkt. 36), regarding the Motion 4 for Summary Judgment ( “Motion”) (Dkt. 27) filed by Defendant Deputy Mosqueda 5 (“Defendant”), in reference to the claims of Plaintiff Terrence Hawkins (“Plaintiff”) as 6 stated in the Complaint, ( “Complaint”) (Dkt. 1). Based on the state of the record, as 7 applied to the applicable law, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation issued 8 by the Magistrate Judge, including each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law 9 therein. 10 On or about October 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint. (Dkt. 1.) On or 11 about December 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Statement of Genuine Disputes” (the 12 “Plaintiff’s Statement”). (Dkt. 26.) On January 26, 2022, Defendant filed the Motion, 13 along with a Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law 14 (“Defendant’s Statement”). (Dkt. 28). On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff opposed the 15 Motion ( “Opposition”). (Dkt. 30.) On March 27, 2023, Defendant filed a Reply in 16 support of the Motion. (Dkt. 31.) On April 28, 2023, Defendant filed the Declaration 17 of Sergeant Jessica Yelenich in Response to Court Order Requiring Submission of 18 Additional Evidence (the “Declaration”) in support of the Motion . (Dkt. 33.) On 19 June 23, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 20 36.) On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation ( 21 “Objections”). (Dkt. 37.) On July 19, 2023, Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s 22 Objections (the “Response”) to the Report and Recommendation . (Dkt. 38.) 23 II. Analysis 24 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 25 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 26 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must 27 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 28 properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 1 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

2 magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written 3 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of 5 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to 6 which objection is made.”

(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna- 7 Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the 8 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 9 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made, 10 arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See

(b)(1)(C) 11 (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file 12 written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by 13 rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the 14 same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v. 15 Haynes,

, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021). 16 In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends 17 “granting Motion for Summary Judgment” and “dismissing this case without 18 prejudice.” (Dkt. 36 at 11.) More specifically, the Magistrate Judge concluded 19 “Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine 20 dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively 21 unavailable.” (Id.) 22 23 In the Objections, in summary, Plaintiff asserts that he “did exhaust his 24 administrative remedies as far as they would let me.” (Dkt. 37 at 2.) In the Response, 25 Defendant argues that “[n]othing in Plaintiff’s Objection refutes the Magistrate 26 Judge’s finding that there is no genuine dispute as to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 27 the administrative exhaustion requirements of the [Prison Litigation Reform Act]” and 28 1 | “Plaintiff never explicitly challenged any factual finding of the Magistrate Judge.” 2 | (Dkt. 38 at 2.) 3 In this case, after conducting a de novo review of the Objections and the 4 | Response, the court agrees with each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set 5 | forth in the Report and Recommendation, including the recommendations that “the 6 | District Judge issue an Order: (1) accepting this Report and Recommendation; 7 | (2) granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and (3) dismissing this case 8 | without prejudice.” (Dkt. 36 at 11.) Accordingly, the contents of the Objections are 9 | OVERRULED on their merits. 10 In sum, pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the record, 11 | including the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Statement, the Motion, 12 | Defendant’s Statement, the Opposition, the Reply, the Declaration, the Objections, 13 | and the Response, and the other records of the case. After conducting a de novo 14 | determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff's 15 | Objections pertain, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of 16 | the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. 17 iI. Conclusion 18 Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the Court 19 | adopts the Report and Recommendation, including each of the findings of fact and 20 | conclusions of law therein. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS THE MOTION and 21 | DISMISSES THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE . 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Lo LJ /—— 26 | Dated: July 31, 2023 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28