Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00882/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00882-6/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

17cv882-CAB-BLM

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

DUWAYNE JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv882-CAB-BLM

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. 

No. 80]; AND (2) GRANTING 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS [Doc. Nos. 

42, 62, 69]

On April 26, 2018, Defendants D. Paramo, L. Romero and G. Valdovinos filed a 

motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) as to Defendant Paramo and 

as to Plaintiff’s due process claim against all defendants. [Doc. No. 42.] On July 9, 

2018, Defendants L. Coronado, D. Clayton and M. Deel filed a motion to dismiss the 

SAC. [Doc. No. 62.] On July 30, 2018, Defendant Teresa Geisinger filed a motion to 

dismiss the SAC. [Doc. No. 69.] Plaintiff filed oppositions to the motions. [Doc. Nos. 

58, 71 and 72.] Defendant Geisinger filed a reply to the opposition. [Doc. No. 76.]

On October 12, 2018, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major prepared a Report and 

Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the motions to dismiss be granted. [Doc. 

No. 80.] The Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed by November 7, 

2018. [Report at 28.] To date, no objection has been filed, nor have there been any 

requests for an extension of time in which to file an objection. 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 84 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cv882-CAB-BLM

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

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 

Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 

filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may 

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

the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he 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) (emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute 

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 

parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. In the absence of timely objection, the Court 

“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 

accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 

Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed it, 

the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major’s Report and 

Recommendation; and (2) GRANTS the motions to dismiss as follows:

a. The motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim as to Defendant Paramo is 

GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;

1

b. The motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s due process claim as to all defendants is 

GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;

 

1 The Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE Defendant Paramo from the case.

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 84 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cv882-CAB-BLM

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

c. The motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment claim of deliberate 

indifference to his medical needs against Defendant Coronado is GRANTED WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND;

d. The motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment claim of deliberate 

indifference to his medical needs against Defendant Clayton is GRANTED WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND;

e. The motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate 

indifference to his medical needs against Defendant Deel is GRANTED WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND;

f. The motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment claim of deliberate 

indifference to his medical needs against Defendant Geisinger is GRANTED WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND.

g. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants 

Coronado, Clayton, Deel and Geisinger, he may file a Third Amended Complaint 

(“TAC”) by December 14, 2018. Plaintiff is reminded that his TAC must be complete in 

itself without reference to his original pleading. Defendants not named and any claims 

not re-alleged in the TAC will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal 

Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 

896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not 

re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”)2 

/ / / / / 

 

2 Plaintiff may not reassert his claims against Defendant Paramo, nor his due process claim against all 

defendants.

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 84 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cv882-CAB-BLM

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

h. If Plaintiff does not file a Third Amended Complaint by December 14, 2018,3

then all remaining defendants shall answer the SAC, as amended by this order, by 

December 28, 2018. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2018

 

3

If a TAC is not filed by December 14, 2018, then the Clerk shall TERMINATE Defendants 

Coronado, Clayton, Deel and Geisinger from the case.

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 84 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4