Ajaelo v. Estrada et al

1
24-cv-2472-AJB-MMP
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
JIDEOFOR AJAELO,
Plaintiff,
v.
R. ESTRADA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24-cv-2472-AJB-MMP
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 16);
(2) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
AS TO DEFENDANT ALONZO
(Doc. No. 10);
(3) GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS AS TO DEFENDANT
ESTRADA (Doc. No. 10)
Before the Court is Defendants R. Estrada and Mario Alonzo’s Motion to Dismiss.
(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.
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.)
Case 3:24-cv-02472-AJB-MMP Document 17 Filed 02/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
24-cv-2472-AJB-MMP
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
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
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).
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:
(1) 	ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety;
(2) 	DENIES 	Defendants’ 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	Plaintiff’s 	First 	Amendment
retaliation claim as to Defendant Alonzo;
(3) 	GRANTS 	Defendants’ 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	Plaintiff’s 	First 	Amendment
retaliation claim as to Defendant Estrada WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;
(4) 	Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint consistent with the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R by no later than April 3, 2026.
(5) 	Defendants must file a responsive pleading to the operative complaint by no
later than May 4, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 2, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-02472-AJB-MMP Document 17 Filed 02/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2