Dunsmore v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE Case No.: 20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL ANDRADE, ERNEST 12 ORDER: ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, 13 ANTHONY EDWARDS, LISA (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND LANDERS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE 14 RECOMMENDATION; LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NELSON, 15 CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, JESSE (2) DENYING NON-PARTY PEDRO OLIVARES, GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, 16 RODRIGUEZ’S RENEWED MOTION MICHAEL TAYLOR, and LAURA TO INTERVENE 17 ZOERNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 18 (Doc. Nos. 280, 351) Plaintiffs, 19 v. 20 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 21 DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY 22 PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and 23 DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Defendants. 24 25 Presently before the Court is Non-Party Pedro Rodriguez’s renewed motion to 26 intervene. (Doc. No. 280.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge David D. 27 Leshner for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which was issued on June 20, 2023. 28 1 ||(Doc. No. 351.) The R&R recommends denying Mr. Rodriguez’s motion to intervene. (/d. 2 ||at 7.) The parties were instructed to file written objections with the Court on or before July 3 2023. Ud.) 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 5 || judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 6 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 7 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 8 made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 9 ||614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 10 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 11 ||}recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment; 12 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 In his opposition, Mr. Rodriguez repeats many of the same grievances as in his 14 ||renewed motion and does not object to any specific portion of the R&R. (See Doc. No. 15 ||379.) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains 16 |/no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Leshner’s 17 || R&R in its entirety; and (2) DENIES Mr. Rodriguez’s renewed motion to intervene. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 ||Dated: August 17, 2023 © 22 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28