Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00275/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00275-6/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

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

JOSEPH ANTHONY HILL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv275 - LAB (NLS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (DOCKET NO.

22) GRANTING THE MOTION TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT

vs.

SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION, SAN

DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT;

UCSD MEDICAL CENTER; ALFRED

JOSHUA, M.D., CHIEF MEDICAL

OFFICER, SHERIFF’S DETENTION

SERVICES BUREAU; WILLIAM GORE,

SHERIFF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,

Defendants.

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case. Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Hill’s complaint

alleges that the Defendant Dr. Alfred Joshua failed to provide follow up medical treatment

after a cop shot him during an arrest. Joshua filed a motion to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Nita

L. Stormes issued a report and recommendation (“R & R”), recommending the court:

(1) GRANT the motion to dismiss Hill’s claim against Joshua in his personal capacity

 with leave to amend.

(2) GRANT the motion to dismiss Hill’s claims against defendant Joshua in his official

capacity without leave to amend as to Joshua but with leave to amend as to County

 itself, if Hill seeks to assert a Monell claim. 

- 1 - 15cv275

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 25 Filed 02/03/16 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

(3) ORDER that the case be administratively closed.

(4) If the district judge grants leave to amend the claims against defendant Joshua,

set a deadline for 30 days out after the adjudication of this R & R for Hill to file an 

 amended complaint as to defendant Joshua.

(Docket No. 22 at 9)

Objections to the R & R were due on January 22, 2016. No objections were filed.

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).The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R & R and agrees with its rationale and

conclusions.

The Court ADOPTS Judge Stormes’ R & R. If Hill thinks he can amend his complaint

to state a claim against Joshua in his personal capacity or if he thinks he can state a Monell

claim against the County, he must do so within 30 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 3, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cv275

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 25 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 2