Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00408/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00408-7/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 - 08cv408-WHQ-BLM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JOHN DAUGHTERY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv408-WQH-BLM

ORDER

vs.

DENNIS WILSON, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 61) filed

on October 23, 2008 by the United States Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major.

On March 3, 2008, Plaintiff William John Daughtery, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed

a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San Diego Police Officer Dennis Wilson, San Diego

Police Officer Esmeralda Tagaban, San Diego Police Sergeant Griffin, and San Diego Police Detective

Lemus. (Doc. 1). The complaint alleges that the Defendants used excessive force against Plaintiff in

violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. On June

19, 2008, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint adding as defendants the City of San Diego and the

San Diego Police Department. (Doc. 25). In Count 5 of the first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges

that the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department are “vicariously liable under the

doctrine of respondeat superior” for the injuries allegedly caused by the acts of Defendants Wilson,

Tagaban, Griffin, and Lemus. (Doc. 25 at 7). 

On July 29, 2008, the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department filed a Rule

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 86 Filed 01/16/09 Page 1 of 2
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 - 08cv408-WHQ-BLM

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the first amended complaint against San Diego Police Department and City

of San Diego. (Doc. 42). On August 14, 2008, the United States Magistrate issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the claims

against the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department with prejudice. (Doc. 61). On

November 24, 2008, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 70).

RULING OF THE COURT

The duties of the district court in connection with the Report and Recommendation of a

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

636(b)(1). 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). The Court has considered all

objections filed by the Plaintiff and reviewed de novo all portions of the Report and Recommendation.

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. The

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Count 5 of the first amended complaint should be dismissed

because Plaintiff failed to comply with the claim presentation requirement of the California Tort

Claims Act and that Plaintiff could not possibly cure this deficiency by amending Count 5.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 61) is adopted in

its entirety, (2) the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police

Department (Doc. 42) is GRANTED. 

DATED: January 16, 2009

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 86 Filed 01/16/09 Page 2 of 2