Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00275/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00275-7/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.

23) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS 

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 Defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide follow up 

medical treatment after a cop shot him during an arrest. The Court dismissed Hill’s claims

against The Regents of the University of California (“Regents”), but allowed Hill to amend

his complaint. He didn’t amend, and Regents now seek dismissal with prejudice pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P 41(b). Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a report and

recommendation (“R & R”) on the Regents’ motion, recommending that it be denied without

prejudice to the Regents refiling this motion if Hill seeks to file an amended complaint against

them.

- 1 - 15cv275

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 26 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

Objections to the R & R were due on January 26, 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.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the case against them with prejudice is DENIED,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

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 26 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 2