Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02444/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02444-1/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

14cv2444-JAH (RBB)

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

CRAIG L. WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S 

DEPT.; ALFRED JOSHUA, CHIEF 

MEDICAL OFFICER; WILLIAM GORE, 

SHERIFF; MEDICAL SERVICES 

DIVISION,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14cv2444-JAH (RBB)

ORDER (1) SUSTAINING 

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION;

(2) ADOPTING ALL PORTIONS OF 

THE REPORT NOT SPECIFICALLY 

OBJECTED TO; (3) GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ITS 

ENTIRETY; AND (4) DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

AND/OR DENY DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

of the Honorable Ruben B. Brooks, United States Magistrate Judge, and objection thereto 

filed by Defendants Sheriff William Gore and Alfred Joshua, M.D. (collectively the 

“Defendants”). See Doc. Nos. 56, 60. After careful consideration of the entire record, and 

for the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) SUSTAINS Defendants’ objection to the 

Case 3:14-cv-02444-JAH-RBB Document 66 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

14cv2444-JAH (RBB)

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

R&R; (2) ADOPTS all portions of the R&R not specifically objected to; (3) GRANTS the 

instant motion for summary judgment, [doc. no. 40], in its entirety; and (4) summarily 

DENIES Plaintiff Craig L. Wilson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to strike and/or deny Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment, [doc. no. 47].

BACKGROUND

On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 

civil rights complaint against Defendants the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, 

Alfred Joshua, M.D., Sheriff William Gore, and the County’s Medical Services Division, 

alleging that, while incarcerated, Plaintiff’s treatment was terminated in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”). See Doc. No. 1. The constitutional bases pled for Plaintiff’s § 

1983 claims are the Eighth Amendment, and Due Process under the Fourteenth 

Amendment. See id. at 2-5. Plaintiff did not prepay the filing fee required at the time of 

filing. Instead, he filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Doc. 

No. 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). On October 22, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP 

motion, directed the U.S. Marshal to effect service of the Complaint on Defendants, and 

summons was returned executed, as to all Defendants, on December 3, 2014. See Doc. Nos.

5-9.

On December 2, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the entire Complaint for failure 

to state a claim. See Doc. No. 5. On May 26, 2015, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 

Judge Brooks recommended that the Complaint be granted in part and denied in part. See 

Doc. No. 15. After receiving no objections to Judge Brooks’ recommendation, this Court 

(1) denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to a serious 

medical need claim; (2) denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Defendants Alfred Joshua, 

M.D. and William D. Gore, in their official capacities; and (3) granted Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss all claims against Defendants Medical Services Division and San Diego County 

Sheriff’s Department. See Doc. No. 18.

On November 28, 2016, the Defendants (specifically, William D. Gore and Alfred 

Joshua, M.D.) filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that they are entitled to 

Case 3:14-cv-02444-JAH-RBB Document 66 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

14cv2444-JAH (RBB)

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

summary adjudication because Plaintiff cannot establish any viable municipal federal civil 

rights claims. See Doc. No. 40. Pursuant to this Court’s scheduling order, issued on 

November 30, 2016, Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

was due no later than January 1, 2017, and Defendants’ reply no later than January 16, 

2017. See Doc. No. 41. On January 18, 2017, the Court deemed the matter suitable for 

resolution on the papers, and took the matter under submission. See Doc. No. 44 (citing 

CivLR 7.1(d)(1)). Twenty-five days after the opposition filing deadline, Plaintiff filed a 

document captioned “Notice of Motion to Strike and or Deny Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment for Failure to Provide Actual Facts Pursuant to Local Rule.” See Doc. 

No. 47. Based on its contents,1the Court summarily DENIES this “motion,” and, instead,

construes it as an untimely opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

On April 20, 2017, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Judge Brooks filed the instant 

R&R recommending that this Court (1) deny Plaintiff’s motion to strike and or deny 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, [doc. no. 47]; (2) grant Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment, with respect to Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim; and (3) 

deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment, with respect to Plaintiff’s due process 

 

1 Plaintiff files what appears to be a two-page opposition to Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. In support, Plaintiff attaches five pages of purported post-incarceration 

medical records. Defendant argues that the records are unauthenticated, and therefore 

should not be considered. Here, the Court notes that the Federal Rules and Ninth Circuit 

precedent make clear that when opposing summary judgment, the opposing party must 

present admissible evidence to establish the presence of a genuine dispute of material fact. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely 

disputed must support the assertion”); see also Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 

978, 983 n.28, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The evidence presented by the parties [on summary 

judgment] must be admissible” and inadmissible hearsay offered by plaintiff could not be 

considered.); Orr v. Bank of America, NY & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We 

have repeatedly held that unauthenticated documents cannot be considered in a motion for 

summary judgment.”) Based on the foregoing, and because Plaintiff’s opposition was 

untimely, the Court finds it suitable to disregard the filing in opposition to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment.

Case 3:14-cv-02444-JAH-RBB Document 66 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

14cv2444-JAH (RBB)

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

claim because “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment does not address Plaintiff’s 

due process claim.” See Doc. No. 56. On May 15, 2017, the Defendants timely objected to 

the R&R. See Doc. No. 60.

DISCUSSION

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation is set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, the district court “shall 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 judge.” Id.; see also

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The party objecting to the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendation bears the responsibility of specifically setting forth which of the 

magistrate’s judge’s findings the party contests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). It is well-settled 

that a district court may adopt those portions of a magistrate judge’s report to which no 

specific objection is made, provided they are not clearly erroneous. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

The Defendants’ specific objection is limited to Part IV(C)(3) of the R&R, entitled 

“Wilson’s due process claim against Joshua.” See Doc. No. 56 at 21-22. Specifically, the 

Defendants argue that, pursuant to the “more-specific-provision” rule articulated by the 

Supreme Court in Co. of Sacramento v. Lewis, (1) all of Plaintiff’s claims, including 

Plaintiff’s due process claim, were properly analyzed under the Eighth Amendment’s 

deliberate indifference standard; and, accordingly, (2), Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment 

due process claim must also fail alongside his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 

claim. See Doc. No. 60 at 2-5 (citing 523 U.S. 833, 841 (1998)). After reviewing the issue 

de novo, the Court agrees.

“[S]ection 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a 

method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 

386, 393-94 (1989) (quotations and citations omitted). In Graham, the Supreme Court set 

Case 3:14-cv-02444-JAH-RBB Document 66 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

14cv2444-JAH (RBB)

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

forth what is referred to as the “more-specific-provision rule.” See Co. of Sacramento v. 

Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 844 (1998). Pursuant to the more-specific-provision rule, “if a 

constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, such as the Fourth or 

Eighth Amendment, the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that 

specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process.” Id. at 841. Here, it is 

undisputed that Plaintiff invokes both the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process clause 

of the Fourteenth Amendment as the constitutional bases for his inadequate medical care 

claims. See Doc. No. 1. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are properly 

analyzed pursuant to same Eighth Amendment analysis argued in Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. Id. Defendants’ objection to the R&R is SUSTAINED.

Moreover, the Court finds no clear error in the remaining portions of the R&R not 

specifically objected to by Defendants. See generally Doc. No. 56. Accordingly, those 

portions of the R&R—which include Judge Brooks’ findings with respect to Plaintiff’s 

deliberate indifference claim under the Eighth Amendment—are hereby ADOPTED.

2

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. at 149.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Sheriff William Gore and Alfred Joshua, M.D.’s objection to the 

R&R, [doc. no. 60], is SUSTAINED;

//

 

2 Particularly, this Court agrees with Judge Brooks that (1) “Defendants have met 

their burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with regard to 

Plaintiff’s claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need[;]” and, 

with respect to the burden shifting to Plaintiff to establish, beyond the pleadings, that there 

is a genuine issue for trial (2) “[a]lthough the Court must view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to Wilson, Plaintiff’s version of the facts ‘is blatantly contradicted by the 

record,’ especially with regard to his purported allergies to three different nonsteroidal antiinflammatories. His various assertions are insufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact.” 

See Doc. No. 56 at 19-20 (citations omitted).

Case 3:14-cv-02444-JAH-RBB Document 66 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

14cv2444-JAH (RBB)

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. All portions of the magistrate judge’s R&R not specifically objected to by the 

Defendants are ADOPTED;

3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [doc. no. 40], is GRANTED, in 

its entirety; and

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and/or Deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, [doc. no. 47], is summarily DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 1, 2017 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02444-JAH-RBB Document 66 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6