Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01717/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01717-11/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD GOSZTYLA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. LY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-01717 KJM CKD P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking 

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On June 17, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. F. & R., ECF No. 63. Plaintiff filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. Objs., ECF No. 64. Defendant Dr. Berry filed a 

response to the objections, Resp., ECF No. 65, and plaintiff has replied, Reply, ECF No. 66. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

Case 2:21-cv-01717-DC-CKD Document 67 Filed 08/19/24 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 

 Plaintiff argues Dr. Berry was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment when Dr. Berry used tools available at the prison facility, 

rather than utilizing specialized tools used by oral surgeons, to extract plaintiff’s dental implant. 

See Objs. at 2–3. “To show deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must show that the course of 

treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that the 

defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the plaintiff's health.” 

Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations, alterations and quotations 

omitted). “Eighth Amendment doctrine makes clear that a difference of opinion between a 

physician and the prisoner—or between medical professionals—concerning what medical care is 

appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference.” Id. (citations, alterations and quotations 

omitted). Here, as the magistrate judge notes, there is no evidence indicating Dr. Berry’s use of 

the tools at the facility fell below the acceptable standard of medical care. See F. & R. at 5. Nor 

has plaintiff provided evidence that the care he received was medically unacceptable under the 

circumstances. Plaintiff’s argument that Dr. Berry should have used different tools to extract his 

implant shows a difference of opinion concerning what medical care is appropriate—it does not 

amount to deliberate indifference. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 63) are adopted in full; 

 2. Defendant Dr. Berry’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 56) is granted; 

 3. Defendant Dr. Berry is dismissed from this action; and 

 4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. 

DATED: August 16, 2024. 

Case 2:21-cv-01717-DC-CKD Document 67 Filed 08/19/24 Page 2 of 2