Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00512/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00512-4/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

3:18-cv-00512-WQH-AGS

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

STEPHEN DRAGASITS,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. RUCKER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00512-WQH-AGS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants T. 

Rucker., L. Marshall, and I. Figueroa (ECF No. 29); the Motion for leave to Amend 

Complaint filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 38); and the Report and Recommendation issued by 

the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 39).

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 

district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 

Case 3:18-cv-00512-WQH-AGS Document 41 Filed 02/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:18-cv-00512-WQH-AGS

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

which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 

(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 

correct.”).

On February 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Objection. (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff requests 

to amend the second cause of action (violation of first Amended rights) of the Second 

Amended Complaint. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the 

record, and the submissions of the parties. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is 

ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count 1 (Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference) is DENIED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count 3 (medical 

malpractice) is DENIED as moot. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count 3 (violation of 

California Government Code § 845.6) is GRANTED without prejudice. Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss Count 4 (declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Article I, §§ 15 

and 17 of the California Constitution) is DENIED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count 

4 (monetary damages pursuant to Article I, §§ 15 and 17 of the California Constitution) is 

GRANTED with prejudice. The Motion for leave to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff 

(ECF No. 38) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Leave to File a Third 

Amended Complaint on or before March 13, 2020. 

Dated: February 13, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-00512-WQH-AGS Document 41 Filed 02/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2