Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01528/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01528-4/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

- 1 - 06CV1528 WQH (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD GARY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV1528 WQH (PCL)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

vs.

K. HAWTHRON, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peter C.

Lewis (Doc. # 40), filed on July 25, 2007, recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2006, Plaintiff Reginald Gary, a pro se state prisoner currently incarcerated at

Tehachapi State Prison, filed the complaint in this matter. (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff seeks relief under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleges that Defendants have denied Plaintiff pain medication and access to

prison programs and a job because of Plaintiff’s disability. (Doc. # 1 at 1-6). Plaintiff alleges

violations of his rights under the Eighth Amendment, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities

Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA), 29

U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and seeks monetary damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. 

(Doc. # 1 at 7-10).

Case 3:06-cv-01528-WQH-PCL Document 44 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 - 06CV1528 WQH (PCL)

On February 16, 2007, Defendants Hawthron, Dumas, Pasha, Hernandez, and Marsh filed a

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on two grounds. (Doc. # 30). Defendants contend that

Plaintiff’s injunctive and declaratory relief claims should be dismissed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.

12(b)(1) for “lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter” because these claims have previously

been resolved before another federal court in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. 01-1351 (N.D. Cal.

Feb. 14, 2006). (Doc. # 30 at 7-8). Defendants further contend that (1) Plaintiff’s RA and ADA

claims against Defendant Marsh should be dismissed because Marsh was improperly sued in an

individual capacity, and (2) Plaintiff’s monetary claims against Defendants Hernandez, Tilton, and

Schwarzenegger should be dismissed because those Defendants are entitled to Eleventh

Amendment sovereign immunity for those claims. (Doc. # 30 at 4-7).

On July 25, 2007, Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis issued a Report and Recommendation

(Doc. # 40) recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district]

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation]

to

which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

When no objections are filed, the district court need not review de novo the Report and

Recommendation. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may nevertheless,

“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); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D.

Case 3:06-cv-01528-WQH-PCL Document 44 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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 - 06CV1528 WQH (PCL)

Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d. 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006).

CONCLUSION & ORDER

Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in this case. 

Accordingly, and after reviewing the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, the Court finds

that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that (1) Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and

injunctive relief regarding medical services should be discretionarily dismissed; (2) Plaintiff’s

ADA and RA claims against Defendant Marsh should be dismissed because a plaintiff cannot

bring a claim pursuant to § 1983 to vindicate rights under the ADA or RA; and (3) Plaintiff’s

claims against Defendants Hernandez, Tilton, and Schwarzenegger should be dismissed because

those Defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 40) is adopted in its

entirety; and

(2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. # 30) Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01528-WQH-PCL Document 44 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 3