Hill v. San Diego Sheriff's Department Medical Services Division et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 for Order Granting the Motions to Dismiss filed by William D. Gore 6 and The Regents of the University of California 9 . Sua sponte dismissing defendant San Diego Sheriff's Department Medical Services Division. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 7/9/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH ANTHONY HILL,
Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 15cv275-LAB (NLS)

vs.

14

17

SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION; UCSD
MEDICAL CENTER; ALFRED JOSHUA,
M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Sheriff's
Detention Services Bureau; WILLIAM
GORE, Sheriff San Diego County,

18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (DOCKET NO.
12) FOR ORDER GRANTING THE
MOTIONS TO DISMISS FILED BY
WILLIAM D. GORE (DOCKET NO. 6)
AND THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
(DOCKET NO. 9)

Defendants.

15
16

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Hill brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claiming that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide continuing
medical care. (Docket no. 1.) Defendant William D. Gore filed a motion to dismiss. (Docket
no. 6.) The Regents of the University of California ("UCSD"), which Hill erroneously sued as
UCSD Medical Center, also filed a motion to dismiss. (Docket no. 9.) Magistrate Judge
Stormes issued a report and recommendation (the “R&R”) on the motions to dismiss,
recommending that the Court:
(1)

GRANT the motion to dismiss Hill’s claims against Sheriff Gore in his
personal capacity with leave to amend.

-1-

15cv275

1

(2)

GRANT the motion to dismiss Hill’s claims against Sheriff Gore in his
official capacity without leave to amend as to Gore but with leave to
amend as to the County itself, if Hill seeks to assert a Monell claim.

(3)

SUA SPONTE DISMISS defendant “San Diego Sheriff’s Department
Medical Services Division” without leave to amend.

(4)

GRANT the motion to dismiss Hill’s claims against UCSD for failure to
provide follow-up medical care with leave to amend.

(5)

GRANT the motion to dismiss Hill’s claims against UCSD for failure to
provide adequate medical care without leave to amend.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

(Docket no. 12 at 14-15.)

9

Objections to the R&R were due on June 26, 2015. Hill didn't file an objection. "The

10

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

11

been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "A judge of the court may accept, reject,

12

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

13

judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review

14

the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

15

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

16

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

17
18
19

conclusions. The R&R is ADOPTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 9, 2015

20
21

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

15cv275