Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00275/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00275-2/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

JOSEPH ANTHONY HILL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv275-LAB (NLS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (DOCKET NO.

12) FOR ORDER GRANTING THE

MOTIONS TO DISMISS FILED BY

WILLIAM D. GORE (DOCKET NO. 6)

AND THE REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

(DOCKET NO. 9)

vs.

SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION; UCSD

MEDICAL CENTER; ALFRED JOSHUA,

M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Sheriff's

Detention Services Bureau; WILLIAM

GORE, Sheriff San Diego County,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Hill brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claiming that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide continuing

medical care. (Docket no. 1.) Defendant William D. Gore filed a motion to dismiss. (Docket

no. 6.) The Regents of the University of California ("UCSD"), which Hill erroneously sued as

UCSD Medical Center, also filed a motion to dismiss. (Docket no. 9.) Magistrate Judge

Stormes issued a report and recommendation (the “R&R”) on the motions to dismiss,

recommending that the Court:

(1) GRANT the motion to dismiss Hill’s claims against Sheriff Gore in his

personal capacity with leave to amend.

- 1 - 15cv275

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 13 Filed 07/13/15 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) GRANT the motion to dismiss Hill’s claims against Sheriff Gore in his

official capacity without leave to amend as to Gore but with leave to

amend as to the County itself, if Hill seeks to assert a Monell claim.

(3) SUA SPONTE DISMISS defendant “San Diego Sheriff’s Department

Medical Services Division” without leave to amend.

(4) GRANT the motion to dismiss Hill’s claims against UCSD for failure to

provide follow-up medical care with leave to amend.

(5) GRANT the motion to dismiss Hill’s claims against UCSD for failure to

provide adequate medical care without leave to amend.

(Docket no. 12 at 14-15.)

Objections to the R&R were due on June 26, 2015. Hill didn't file an objection. "The

district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has

been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "A judge of the court may 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). The "statute 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." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and agrees with its rationale and

conclusions. The R&R is ADOPTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 9, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cv275

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 13 Filed 07/13/15 Page 2 of 2