Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01924/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01924-6/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

16cv1924-LAB (RNB)

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

EARL WARNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. VELARDI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv1924-LAB (RNB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, state prisoner, Earl Warner is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Defendants Nurse Practitioner Velardi and Dr. Cook filed a motion for summary 

judgment. Warner broke his hand when he punched the concrete wall in his cell. 

He claims Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide 

him with the medical treatment he believes was appropriate. This matter was 

referred to Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block for report and recommendation. After 

receiving briefing, on August 14, Judge Block issued his report and 

recommendation (the “R&R”). It found that plaintiff’s allegations against 

defendants were insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact, and 

recommended granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing 

the action with prejudice. 

Case 3:16-cv-01924-LAB-RNB Document 56 Filed 11/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv1924-LAB (RNB)

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

The R&R set a deadline of fourteen days for filing objections. After the R&R 

was issued, Warner filed a notice saying he had been transferred to a different 

facility. Because it was not clear whether he had received the R&R, the Court 

directed that a copy be sent to his new address, and sua sponte extended the 

deadline for objections.

Warner then filed a request (Docket no. 54), supported by an affidavit, asking 

for a second extension of fifteen more days. The affidavit made clear Warner was 

prepared to draft objections, but just wanted more time. The Court granted a longer

extension than he requested — twenty-five days — making the new deadline 

October 25. The deadline for objecting to the R&R has passed, however. Warner 

has filed no objections, nor has he requested additional time to do so.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and 

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge 

must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has 

been properly objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may 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). This section does not require some lesser review by 

the district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–

50 (1985). The “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).

The Court ADOPTS the R&R’s unobjected-to factual findings. A review of 

those facts shows there is no genuine issue of material fact about whether either 

Defendant was deliberately indifferent to Warner’s serious medical needs. They 

both offered him treatment for his injury, and medication for the pain. There is no 

evidence that any delays in treatment were deliberate, or even that they were 

attributable to these Defendants. The evidence was insufficient to establish an 

Case 3:16-cv-01924-LAB-RNB Document 56 Filed 11/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv1924-LAB (RNB)

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

Eighth Amendment claim. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105–06 (1976)

(the Eighth Amendment is violated by “deliberate indifference” to serious medical 

needs, not mere negligence). The fact that Warner disagreed with their decisions 

does not establish a claim. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058–60 (9th

Cir. 2004) (difference of opinion about appropriate medical treatment does not 

amount to an Eighth Amendment violation).

The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. This action is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01924-LAB-RNB Document 56 Filed 11/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3