Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02362/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02362-5/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

RONALD W. SINGSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2362-WQH-BLM

ORDER

vs.

E. MARRERO and W. SUGLICH,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

40) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major, recommending that

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No.

34) be granted.

I. Background

On November 15, 2010, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a

Complaint against twelve Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). 

On March 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants

Marrero and Suglich only. (ECF No. 6). The First Amended Complaint contains two counts,

one against each Defendant, alleging cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth

Amendment stemming from his allegation that, despite being aware that Plaintiff needed to be

housed in a lower tier cell due to his medical conditions, Defendants moved him to an upper

tier cell, resulting in multiple falls by Plaintiff that caused serious injury. The First Amended

Complaint requests compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

On November 26, 2012, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 34). 

Defendants do not challenge the two claims for cruel and unusual punishment, but Defendants

read the First Amended Complaint as containing an additional claim against each Defendant

- 1 - 10cv2362-WQH-BLM

Case 3:10-cv-02362-WQH-BLM Document 41 Filed 04/23/13 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

for deliberate indifference to the medical care Plaintiff received after each fall. Defendants

move for the dismissal of these deliberate indifference claims and the request for injunctive

relief.

On January 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.1

 (ECF No.

37). On January 15, 2013, Defendants filed a reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF

No. 38). On January 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice. (ECF No. 39).

On March 8, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (ECF

No. 40). The Magistrate Judge stated: 

[T]he Court does not read the [First Amended Complaint] as alleging a claim for

deliberate indifference to medical care based upon the care Plaintiff received

after his falls. The Court notes that Plaintiff did clearly raise this claim in his

original complaint where he described his claims as ‘[d]enial of medical care

and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment’ and named various

nurses and doctors as defendants. In contrast, in the [First Amended Complaint],

Plaintiff describes his claims as ‘freedom from cruel and unusual punishment’

and does not explicitly state or even imply that he was denied adequate medical

care by either Defendant Marrero or Defendant Suglich, the only two defendants

left in the case. However, to the extent Defendants are correct and Plaintiff is

making a claim of deliberate indifference to the medical care provided after his

falls, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead the claim....

Id. at 6-7 (citing ECF No. 1 at 5-10 and ECF No. 6 at 3-4). The Magistrate Judge also

recommended that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be granted. 

Id. at 11-13. The Report and Recommendation concludes:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this Report must be

filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than March 29, 2013.... The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order.

Id. at 14 (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)).

The docket reflects that neither party filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

1

 In the opposition brief, Plaintiff states: “Plaintiff would like to point out to the Court

and Defendants that [Plaintiff] did in fact ‘attempt’ to submit a timely ‘second amended

complaint,’ yet had the second amended complaint returned to him completely destroyed by

correctional staff just prior to receiving the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss....” (ECF No. 37

at 2). The docket reflects that, after receiving the “completely destroyed” second amended

complaint, Plaintiff did not file a renewed motion for leave to file the second amended

complaint or a motion to reconsider the Court’s November 14, 2012 Order vacating the leave

granted Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 33).

- 2 - 10cv2362-WQH-BLM

Case 3:10-cv-02362-WQH-BLM Document 41 Filed 04/23/13 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

II. Review of the Report and Recommendation

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). When a party objects 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). When no objections are filed, the district

court need not review the report and recommendation de novo. See United States v.

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

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the Court has reviewed

the Report and Recommendation, the First Amended Complaint and the submissions of the

parties. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, except that, to the

extent the First Amended Complaint alleges claims for deliberate indifference to the medical

care Plaintiff received, those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED (ECF

No. 40), and the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED (ECF No. 34), as stated above. The sole

remaining claims in this action are claims for damages against Defendants Marrero and Suglich

alleging cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment stemming from

the allegation that, despite being aware that Plaintiff needed to be housed in a lower tier cell

due to his medical conditions, Defendants moved him to an upper tier cell, resulting in multiple

falls by Plaintiff that caused serious injury.

DATED: April 23, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 10cv2362-WQH-BLM

Case 3:10-cv-02362-WQH-BLM Document 41 Filed 04/23/13 Page 3 of 3