Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01179/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01179-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

MICHAEL VAUGHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10-cv-1179-L(WMc)

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING IN PART REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC.

33],

(2) SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’

OBJECTIONS [DOC. 34], AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS [DOC. 26]

On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff Michael Vaughan, a former state prisoner, filed a First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: (1) deliberate indifference

to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (2) medical malpractice under

California law stemming from the medical care he received while in prison. On February 9,

2012, Defendants Reymia Ramos, RN (“Nurse Ramos”), Alberto Lopez, RN (“Nurse Lopez”),

and Cheryl Burnette, O.D. (“Dr. Burnette”) filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. Plaintiff

opposed. On March 16, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. issued a

Report and Recommendation (“Report”) with respect to the motion. Thereafter, Defendants

filed objections to the Report, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

10cv1179

Case 3:10-cv-01179-L-WMC Document 41 Filed 06/26/12 Page 1 of 7
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

For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS IN PART the Report (Doc. 33),

SUSTAINS Defendants’ objections (Doc. 34), and GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC (Doc. 26).

I. BACKGROUND1

Plaintiff was an inmate incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison (“Calipatria”) on or about

June 26, 2008. (FAC ¶ 13.) After arriving at Calipatria, Plaintiff had surgery to correct beefy

2

pterygium in his left eye. (Id. ¶ 14.) Following the surgery, Plaintiff reported pain and

discomfort in his left eye weekly to Calipatria medical personnel, but received no specialized

treatment or prescription medication. (Id. ¶ 15.) 

On June 2, 2009, Dr. Burnette, a licensed optometrist, noted in Plaintiff’s medical records

that Plaintiff was exhibiting physical signs and symptoms of a corneal ulcer in his left eye. 

(FAC ¶ 16.) However, she did not refer Plaintiff to an ophthalmologist for treatment. (Id.) On 3

June 18, 2009, Dr. Burnette once again noted in Plaintiff’s medical record that Plaintiff was

exhibiting physical signs and symptoms of a corneal ulcer in his left eye. (Id. ¶ 19.) Once again,

she did not refer Plaintiff to an ophthalmologist for treatment, but instead directed Plaintiff to

return to his cell without any medication or explanation. (Id. ¶ 20.) 

On June 20, 2009, Dr. Le, an ophthalmologist, noted that Plaintiff was exhibiting physical

signs and symptoms of corneal ulcer in his left eye and wrote Plaintiff a prescription for

antibiotic eye drops. (FAC ¶ 22.) However, between June 20, 2009 and June 22, 2009,

Calipatria medical personnel failed to provide Plaintiff with medication for his left eye. (Id. ¶

23.) 

On June 22, 2009, Plaintiff presented to Calipatria medical clinic complaining that he had

not received his eye drops. (FAC ¶ 24.) At that time, Nurse Ramos noted that Dr. Le prescribed

Defendants did not object to the following factual summary presented in the Report. 1

Plaintiff was released from custody in July 2011. (FAC ¶ 14.) 2

 Dr. Burnette cannot prescribe medication. (FAC ¶ 16.) 3

10cv1179

2

Case 3:10-cv-01179-L-WMC Document 41 Filed 06/26/12 Page 2 of 7
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

Plaintiff antibiotic eye drops for his left eye, but did not explain why Calipatria medical

personnel had not filled Plaintiff’s prescription. (Id.) Rather, Nurse Ramos noted that Plaintiff’s

medical chart was missing and directed Plaintiff to return to his cell without his eye drops. (Id.)

On June 25, 2009, Plaintiff presented to Calipatria medical clinic and again complained

that he had not received his antibiotic eye drops. (FAC ¶ 26.) Nurse Lopez noted in Plaintiff’s

medical records that Plaintiff was exhibiting physical signs and symptoms of a corneal ulcer in

his left eye, yet did not refer Plaintiff to an ophthalmologist. (Id.) Instead, he directed Plaintiff

to return to his cell without his antibiotic eye drops or an examination by an ophthalmologist. 

(Id.)

In July 2009, an outside ophthalmologist examined Plaintiff’s left eye. (FAC ¶ 27.) The

ophthalmologist diagnosed him with an advanced corneal ulcer and severe eye infection caused

by bacteria in the anterior chamber of the left eye. (Id.) The ophthalmologist prescribed and

administered antibiotics to Plaintiff’s left eye. (Id.) Plaintiff required ongoing treatment and

care for his infected left eye, which included administering antibiotic eye drops. (Id.) 

Calipatria ran out of Plaintiff’s prescribed eye drops in August 2009. (FAC ¶ 28.)

Consequently, Dr. Katrina Ball, D.O. (“Dr. Ball”) instructed Nurse Lopez to administer

medication which Plaintiff’s ophthalmologist had discontinued. (Id.) Dr. Ball changed the eye

medication without consulting Plaintiff’s ophthalmologist, and subsequently, Plaintiff had

surgery to excise the corneal ulcer in his left eye. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.)

On June 1, 2011, Plaintiff commenced this action against Dr. Ball, among others, alleging

a deliberate indifference to his medical needs. On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a FAC 4

against Dr. Ball and added Nurse Ramos, Nurse Lopez, and Dr. Burnette as defendants. 

Additionally, Plaintiff added a medical-malpractice cause of action against Dr. Ball, Nurse

Ramos, Nurse Lopez, and Dr. Burnette. Nurse Ramos, Nurse Lopez, and Dr. Burnette now

On November 10, 2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the State of California,

4

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and Calipatria. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his

claims against Warden Leland McEwen and Dr. Ball.

10cv1179

3

Case 3:10-cv-01179-L-WMC Document 41 Filed 06/26/12 Page 3 of 7
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

move to dismiss the FAC. Dr. Ball filed an answer to the FAC, but is not a moving defendant.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and a

party’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to

review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) “makes it clear that

the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.

Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections are filed, the district

court has no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report).

In contrast, the duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation are quite different when an objection has been filed. These duties are set forth

in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Specifically,

the district court “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v.

Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 

III. DISCUSSION5

A prison official’s deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs

constitutes the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the Eighth

Amendment.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096

 Plaintiff has not objected to the Report’s recommendation that the Court dismiss with prejudice 5

Plaintiff’s Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and medical-malpractice claim. Thus, the

Court ADOPTS the Report’s findings in full as they pertain to those claims.

10cv1179

4

Case 3:10-cv-01179-L-WMC Document 41 Filed 06/26/12 Page 4 of 7
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

(9th Cir. 2006). To prevail in a deliberate-indifference claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) serious

medical need and (2) defendant’s response to plaintiff’s serious medical need was deliberately

indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096; McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992),

overruled on other grounds in WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997)

(en banc). 

Deliberate indifference may be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or

intentionally interfere with medical treatment.” McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. However, unless

the delay or denial was harmful, mere delay or denial of treatment does not violate the Eighth

Amendment. Id. at 1060; Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th

Cir. 1985) (“Mere delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient to state a claim of deliberate

medical indifference[.]”). If an inmate is seriously harmed by a prison official’s inaction, that

harm tends to support a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. McGuckin,

974 F.2d at 1060. 

Defendants object to the Report to the extent it finds that Plaintiff sufficiently pleads his

Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims. Specifically, Defendants contend that the

Report relies on a misinterpretation of the alleged harm caused by the delays in treatment

attributed to their alleged inactions. The Court agrees. 

The Report concludes that Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to state claims under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 because he alleges that: (1) Nurse Ramos failed to provide him with antibiotic eye drops

on June 22, 2009, (2) Nurse Lopez failed to give him his antibiotic eye drops and an examination

by an ophthalmologist on June 25, 2009, and (3) Dr. Burnette failed to treat him or refer him to

an ophthalmologist for treatment on June 2 and June 18, 2009. (See Report 11:10-15; 12:17-22;

13-14.) The Report finds that Plaintiff alleges that these delays in treatment were harmful and

ultimately resulted in a severe infection in his left eye that required surgery. (Id.) Based on this

finding, the Report makes the inference that Defendants’ inactions resulted in serious harm to

Plaintiff, which tends to support a claim of deliberate indifference. (Id.)

Upon review of the FAC, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to allege that the delays in

treatment attributed to Nurse Ramos, Nurse Lopez, and Dr. Burnette caused any harm. To the

10cv1179

5

Case 3:10-cv-01179-L-WMC Document 41 Filed 06/26/12 Page 5 of 7
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

contrary, the FAC alleges only that Plaintiff had surgery to excise the corneal ulcer because

Calipatria ran out of the antibiotic eye drops that he was taking in August 2009, and Dr. Ball

instructed the medical staff to continue Plaintiff on antibiotics that a specialist had already

determined were ineffective. (See FAC ¶¶ 28-29.) From these allegations, the Court cannot

reasonably infer that any harm occurred as a result of Defendants’ alleged inaction. Although

the FAC presents some conslusory allegations linking Defendants’ alleged inaction to Plaintiff’s

second surgery, these allegations are not sufficient for the Court to draw the inference because

they lack a factual basis. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 33.) Thus, because Plaintiff does not allege that

Defendant’s alleged inaction caused him harm, any such delay in treatment cannot establish an

Eighth Amendment deliberate-interference claim. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Nurse Ramos, Nurse

Lopez, and Dr. Burnette. 

6

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS IN PART the Report, SUSTAINS

Defendants’ objections, and GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Defendants’ motion to

dismiss the FAC. Specifically, the Court hereby:

(1) DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims as

to Defendants Nurse Ramos, Nurse Lopez, and Dr. Burnette. If Plaintiff decides to

file an amended complaint as to only his Eighth Amendment claims, he must do so

by July 30, 2012;

 (2) DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth

Amendment claims, and medical-malpractice claim as to Defendants Nurse

Ramos, Nurse Lopez, and Dr. Burnette. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home

 Nurse Lopez and Dr. Burnette’s remaining objections derive from the Report finding a causal

6

link between his alleged inaction and Plaintiff’s second surgery. However, because the Court finds the

FAC alleges no such causal linkage, the issue is moot. 

10cv1179

6

Case 3:10-cv-01179-L-WMC Document 41 Filed 06/26/12 Page 6 of 7
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

Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] district court may dismiss

without leave where . . . amendment would be futile.”); and 

(3) DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ request that the Court decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendant state claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 25, 2012

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM MCCURINE, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

10cv1179

7

Case 3:10-cv-01179-L-WMC Document 41 Filed 06/26/12 Page 7 of 7