Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01334/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01334-12/pdf.json

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

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09CV1334 WQHMDD

vs. ORDER

SELEAINA ANN THOMAS;

VROOMAN; SEPULVEDA; 

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the court is the Report and Recommendation recommending

that the Motion for Relief from Judgment filed by Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant be

denied. (ECF No. 164). 

BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2009, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three medical staff members at Calipatria State

Prison. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On November 27, 2012, this Court entered an order granting summary judgment

in favor of Defendants Thomas, Vrooman, and Sepulveda and dismissing Plaintiff’s

claims. (ECF No. 114). The Court found that there was no evidence that Defendant

Thomas, a nurse practitioner, deliberately withheld treatment, delayed treatment, or

interfered with treatment. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for

- 1 - 09cv1334-WQH-MDD

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 169 Filed 09/08/15 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

the Ninth Circuit on March 3, 2014 after the entry of a Judgment. (ECF No. 141 and

ECF No. 144). 

On December 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment seeking

relief from judgment against Defendant Thomas. (ECF No. 152). Plaintiff’s appeal

was stayed pending ruling on this motion. (ECF No. 154). 

 On June 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,

recommending that the Motion for Relief from Judgment be denied. (ECF No. 164). 

After an extension of time, Plaintiff’s objections were due “no later than September 1,

2015.” (ECF No. 168). No objections have been filed. 

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). The district judge 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). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a

report and recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416

F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th

Cir. 2003) (en banc).

After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the record in its entirety,

the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly found that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Relief from Judgment should be denied. 

///

- 2 - 09cv1334-WQH-MDD

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 169 Filed 09/08/15 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

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED

in its entirety. (ECF No. 164). The Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule

60(b)(2) (ECF No. 152) is denied.

DATED: September 8, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 09cv1334-WQH-MDD

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 169 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 3