JIDEOFOR AJAELO v. R. ESTRADA, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JIDEOFOR AJAELO, Case No.: 24-cv-2472-AJB-MMP 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND v. 14 RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 16); R. ESTRADA, et al., (2) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS 16 Defendants. AS TO DEFENDANT ALONZO (Doc. No. 10); 18 (3) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AS TO DEFENDANT ESTRADA (Doc. No. 10) 21 Before the Court is Defendants R. Estrada and Mario Alonzo’s Motion to Dismiss.

22 (Doc. No. 10.) The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit for a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on January 9, 2026. (Doc.

24 No. 16.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. (Id. at 1.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by January 26, 2026, and replies by no later than fourteen days after being served with written objections. (Id. at 14.)

1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 6 ||614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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 note to the 1983 amendment; || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

10 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court || hereby: 13 (1) ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety; 14 (2) DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amendment || retaliation claim as to Defendant Alonzo; 16 (3) GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs First Amendment 17 retaliation claim as to Defendant Estrada WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; 18 (4) Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint consistent with the Magistrate || Judge’s R&R by no later than April 3, 2026.

20 (5) Defendants must file a responsive pleading to the operative complaint by no || later than May 4, 2026.

22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 || Dated: February 2, 2026 © 24 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge