Thompson v. RJD CF Warden et al

1
24CV-357 TWR (DDL)
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID A. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES S. HILL, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24-CV-357 TWR (DDL)
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT
& RECOMMENDATION, AND
(2) DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
(ECF Nos. 48, 66)
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Which Relief May Be Granted (“Mot.,” ECF
No. 48). Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner has issued a Report and Recommendation for
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot (“R&R,” ECF No. 66). 	Having carefully
reviewed the Parties’ arguments, Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R, and the law, the Court
ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R in its entirety and DENIES AS MOOT
Defendants’ Motion, as follows.
BACKGROUND
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 2–4.) 	This
Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 67 Filed 03/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
24-CV-357 TWR (DDL)
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
LEGAL STANDARD
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
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.”).
ANALYSIS
As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge
Leshner’s R&R. 	(See R&R at 10 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than
February 5, 2026).) 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 DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court:
(1) 	ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R (ECF No. 66);
(2) 	DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 48); and
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 67 Filed 03/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
24-CV-357 TWR (DDL)
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
(3) 	ORDERS Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint,
if one is filed, within twenty-one (21) days of its entry on the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2026
___________________________
Honorable Todd W. Robinson
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 67 Filed 03/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3