Wilson v. Unknown Oceanside Police Officers

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TEDDY LeROY WILSON, Jr., Case No.: 23-CV-270 TWR (DDL) Inmate #23700343, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT Plaintiff, 13 & RECOMMENDATION, vs. (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY UNKNOWN Oceanside Police Officers; 15 JUDGMENT, (3) DIRECTING UNKNOWN Tri City Hospital Staff; CLERK TO ENTER JUDGMENT, UNKNOWN Oceanside Fire Department (4) DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST Staff; UNKNOWN Oceanside Trainers 17 UNKNOWN PARTIES, AND and Supervisors, (5) FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 18 Defendants. CAUSE WHY HIS CLAIMS 19 AGAINST DEFENDANT NELSON SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 21 (ECF Nos. 60, 94) 23 Presently before the Court is Defendants City of Oceanside; Sgt. Jeff Brandt; Michelle Alarcon; and Officers Daniel Post, Aaron Weirich, Billy Walker, Natalie Laser, and Dustin Lundy’ Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment (“Mot.,” ECF No. 60). Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner has issued a Report and Recommendation for Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“R&R,” ECF No. 94). Having carefully reviewed the Parties’ arguments, Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R, the record, and the law, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion, as follows.

3 BACKGROUND 4 Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and procedural history underlying the instant Motion. (See R&R at 2–3, 4–13.)

6 This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

7 LEGAL STANDARD 8 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion 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 judge.” 28 12 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

20 ANALYSIS 21 As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R. (See R&R at 34 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than January 31, 2025).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well- reasoned, and contains no clear error. The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.

26 / / / / / / / / / I CONCLUSION 2 In light of the foregoing, the Court: 3 (1) ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R (ECF No. 94); 4 (2) GRANTS Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 60); 5 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment: 6 (a) in favor of Defendants City of Oceanside; Sergeant Jeff Brandt; 7 Officers Daniel Post, Aaron Weirich, Billy Walker, Natalie Laser, and Dustin 8 Lundy; and Field Evidence Technician Michelle Alarcon as to Plaintiffs claims 9 arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1983; and 10 (b) in Defendants’ favor as to all other causes of action, to the extent they 11 survived the Court’s initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 12 1915A(b), (see ECF No. 5); 13 (4) DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all claims against “unknown Tri City || Hospital Staff’ and “unknown Oceanside Fire and Paramedics;” and 15 (5) ORDERS Plaintiff Teddy LeRoy Wilson, Jr. TO SHOW CAUSE within || twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order why his claims against Probation Officer T.

17 || Nelson should not be dismissed for failure timely to effect service of process pursuant to ||Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and Civil Local Rule 4.1(b). Jf Plaintiff fails || adequately to respond to this Order within the time provided, the Court will enter a final || order of dismissal without prejudice as to Defendant Nelson for failure timely to effect ||service pursuant to Rule 4(m) and Civil Local Rules 4.1 and 41.1(b) and for failure to ||\comply with this District’s Civil Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and || this Court’s Order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.1(a).

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 || Dated: February 6, 2025 26 [ Od) (2 re 17 Honorable Todd WwW. Robinson United States District Judge