Lomax v. Canlas et al
Filing
67
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 62 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Lubisich (Doc. 54 ) is GRANTED without leave to amend. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 9/4/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)
FILED'
1
2
SEP 11 2012
3
ClERK, U.S. D
8OU1'HERN DISTRICT
4
W
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
PETER ROMERO LOMAX,
CASE NO. 10cv2226 WQH-WMc
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER
vs.
12
13
14
15
CANLAS; WHITEHEAD; FARINAS;
LEHV; CHOO; JOHN LUBISICH; K.L.
HAWTHORNE; MATTHEW KATE;
MEDICAL AUTHORIZATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE; TYLER;
SILVA; O. CASSESI,
16
17
18
19
20
Defendants.
HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the court is the Report and Recommendation filed by United States
Magistrate Judge William McCurine recommending that the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendant J. Lubisich be granted. (ECF No. 62).
21
22
23
BACKGROUND
On October 26, 2010, Plaintiff, a prisoner then incarcerated at RJ. Donovan
Correctional Facility ("Donovan") and proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a civil
24
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Complaint"). (ECF No.1). Plaintiffalso filed
25
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that was granted by the Court on December 7, 2010.
26
27
(ECF No.4).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth
Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate medical care while Plaintiffwas incarcerated
28
at Donovan from 2007 to 2009. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lubisich "was acting under
- 1-
lOcv2226-WQH-WMc
1 color of law when he accepted contract work from a state agency and allowed Plaintiff's
2
medical condition to get worse by writing an incomplete and ambiguous report regarding
3
Plaintiff's condition." (ECF No. I at 4).
4
On February 1,2012, Defendant J. Lubisich filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 54).
5 Defendant Lubisich contends that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant
6
Lubisich for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs and that Plaintiff has failed
7 to allege sufficient facts to support liability of Defendant Lubisich under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
8
9
The docket reflects that Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
filed by Defendant Lubisich.
10
On June 5, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
11
recommending that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Lubisich be granted. (ECF No.
12
62). The Report and Recommendation concluded:
13
IT IS ORDERED that no later than July 6, 2012, any party to this action
may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties ....
14
16
IT IS FURTIlER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be
filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than July 27, 2012. The
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court's order.
17
(ECF No. 62 at 9, citing Martinez v. nst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)). The docket reflects
18
that no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.
15
19
REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
20
The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a
21
magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
22
The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to
23
which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
24
or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not
25
review de novo those portions ofa report and recommendation to which neither party obj ects.
26 See Wangv. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992,1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); Us. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
27
1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
28
-2-
lOcv2226-WQH-WMc
1
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court
2
finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly found that, "[a]t best, plaintiffs conclusory
3 allegations suggest Dr. Lubisich may have acted negligently. However, something more than
4 negligence, or gross negligence, or medical malpractice is required for a violation ofthe Eighth
5 Amendment" (ECF No. 62 at 6, citing Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.
6 2004)). The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that, Plaintiff "has
7 failed to state a plausible Eighth Amendment cause of action against [D]efendant Lubisich."
8 Id. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that "revising plaintiffs
9 Eighth Amendment claims against Dr. Lubisich would prove futile because plaintiffs claims
10
are entirely premised on a negligence theory of liability." Id. at 8.
11
CONCLUSION
12
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 62) is
13
ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs claims against Defendant
14 Lubisich (ECF No. 54) is GRANTED without leave to amend.
15
16 DATE:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
lOcv2226-WQH-WMc
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?