Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01334/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01334-9/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 WQH-MDD

ORDER

vs.

SELEAINA ANN THOMAS;

VROOMAN; SEPULVEDA; 

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the court is the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate

Judge recommending that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Thomas,

Vrooman, and Sepulveda be granted and that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed. (ECF No. 104). 

BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2009, Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison and

proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis which was

granted by the Court on November 9, 2009. (ECF Nos. 2, 16). On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff

filed a First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). (ECF No. 48). In the Complaint, Plaintiff

alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate

medical care while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison in 2006. 

On May 18, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims against Defendants Vrooman and Sepulveda and that

- 1 - 09cv1334-WQH-MDD

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 114 Filed 11/27/12 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

Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant Thomas was deliberately indifferent to a serious

medical need. (ECF No. 75). On July 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 94). 

On July 27, 2012, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 97). 

 On September 7, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,

recommending that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants be granted as to

Defendants Vrooman and Sepulveda on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies against those defendants, and granted as to Defendant Thomas on the

grounds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant Thomas was deliberately

indifferent to his medical needs. (ECF No. 104). 

On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 106). In his objections, Plaintiff “stipulate[s] to [the Magistrate Judge’s] conclusion

that [he] did not exhaust administrative remedies on [D]efendants Vrooman and Sepulveda,”

but asserts that “[D]efendant Thomas was fired by CDCR because of her medical negligence

and deliberate indifference to inmates serious medical needs.” Id. at 2, 4. In his objections,

Plaintiff reiterates the arguments asserted in his Complaint and moving papers regarding

Defendant Thomas’ administration of medical treatment to Plaintiff. 

On October 12, 2012, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 107). On October 22, 2012,

Plaintiff supplemented his objections, requesting that the Court order discovery of “[Defendant

Thomas’] personnel records and all records and documents regarding why she was fired by

CDCR.... and all that allege that she refused to provide treatment to patients.” (ECF No. 109

at 2, 6). On November 8, 2012, Plaintiff again supplemented his objections, requesting that

the Court “issues a[n] order allowing [Plaintiff] to take depositions upon written questions of

non-party CDCR employees and material witnesses....” (ECF No. 111 at 1). 

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

- 2 - 09cv1334-WQH-MDD

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 114 Filed 11/27/12 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

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 this case, the Court

finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly found that “Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies with regard to all claims against Defendants Vrooman and

Sepulveda.” (ECF No. 104 at 10). In his objections, Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies against Defendants Vrooman and Sepulveda. (ECF No.

106 at 2). The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that “Plaintiff has

failed to establish that Defendant Thomas was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.” 

(ECF No. 104 at 19). In his objections, Plaintiff does not provide new evidence or argument

to refute this conclusion. Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery is untimely and the

specific materials he seeks are immaterial to his individual claims against Defendant Thomas. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its

entirety. (ECF No. 104). The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Thomas,

Vrooman, and Sepulveda is GRANTED. (ECF No. 75). 

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his claims against Defendants Vrooman and

Sepulveda within ninety (90) days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to amend his claims against

Defendants Vrooman and Sepulveda within ninety (90) days of this Order, the Clerk of the

Court will be instructed to close this case. 

DATED: November 27, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 09cv1334-WQH-MDD

Case 3:09-cv-01334-WQH-MDD Document 114 Filed 11/27/12 Page 3 of 3