Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02420/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02420-8/pdf.json

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

- 1 - 06CV2420 WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEDDY LEROY WILSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV2420 WQH (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

vs. RECOMMENDATION

ISMAEL BRIZYELA, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Barbara L.

Major recommending that the Court grant in part, and deny in part, Defendants’ motion to dismiss

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 46).

BACKGROUND

On May 22, 2007, Plaintiff Teddy Leroy Wilson, Jr. filed a Second Amended Complaint

against Defendants Ismael Brizyela, Denise Johnson, and Hector Rubio alleging that Defendants

violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to equal protection, due process, and the right to be free from

excessive force. (Doc. # 13). On June 12, 2007, this Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), and sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s

equal protection and due process claims. (Doc. # 14). The Court did not dismiss Plaintiff’s excessive

force claims for money damages and injunctive relief. (Doc. # 14).

On July 18, 2007, Defendants Rubio and Brizyela filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims

Case 3:06-cv-02420-WQH-BLM Document 47 Filed 02/27/08 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

- 2 - 06CV2420 WQH (BLM)

for excessive force on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity. (Doc. # 25). On January 24, 2008,

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. # 44). On January 29, 2008, Defendants filed a

reply. (Doc. # 45).

On January 30, 2008, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that this Court grant in part, and deny in part, Defendants’ motion

to dismiss. (Doc. # 46). The Magistrate Judge concluded that Defendants were entitled to immunity

on Plaintiff’s claim for damages against Defendants in Defendants’ official capacities. However, the

Magistrate Judge concluded that Defendants were not entitled to immunity on Plaintiff’s claims for

damages against Defendants in their individual capacities. (Doc. # 46). Neither party filed objections

to the Report and Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district]

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to

which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

When no objections are filed, the district court need not review de novo the Report and

Recommendation. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may always, “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); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural

Desert Ass’n v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d. 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006).

DISCUSSION & ORDER

Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court

has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court concludes that the Magistrate

Judge correctly determined that Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity with

respect to Plaintiff’s claims for damages against Defendants in their official capacities, but that

Defendants are not entitled to immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s claims for damages against

Case 3:06-cv-02420-WQH-BLM Document 47 Filed 02/27/08 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

- 3 - 06CV2420 WQH (BLM)

Defendants in their individual capacities. Construing Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

liberally, as this Court must, it is evident that Plaintiff intended to assert claims against Defendants

in both their individual and official capacities. See (Doc. # 13 at 2).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 46) is ADOPTED

in its entirety. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. # 25) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims for

damages against Defendants in their official capacities. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. # 25)

is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claims for damages against Defendants in their individual capacities.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 27, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02420-WQH-BLM Document 47 Filed 02/27/08 Page 3 of 3