UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 30, 2010
KELVIN NEAL WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
OFFICER DAN RICHEY; OFFICER MCCAMY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: David O. Carter United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the entire file de novo, including the complaint; the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"); the Objections to the R&R filed on June 24, 2010; Defendants' response to Plaintiff's objections filed on July 6, 2010; and the records and files. Based upon the Court's de novo review, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's objections are overruled.
Plaintiff appears to argue that the Magistrate Judge should have addressed a claim of deliberate indifference to "serious medical needs." (Objections at 3.) However, none of the pleadings or extensive filings in this matter indicate that Plaintiff ever alleged a claim of inadequate medical care.*fn1 To the extent Plaintiff is requesting leave to amend the complaint, it is denied because of unreasonable delay.*fn2 "The timing of the motion, after the parties had conducted discovery and a pending summary judgment motion had been fully briefed, weighs heavily against allowing leave. A motion for leave to amend is not a vehicle to circumvent summary judgment." Schlacter-Jones v. General Telephone of Calif., 936 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc); M/V American Queen v. San Diego Marine Const. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1492 (9th Cir. 1983) ("a motion for summary judgment was pending and possible disposition of the case would be unduly delayed by granting the motion for leave to amend").
Plaintiff also states that he wishes the Court to consider new evidence of his injuries.*fn3 (Objections at Caption Page-1.) Plaintiff states that on June 9, 2010, he "obtain[ed]" an affidavit from a doctor "on the cause of Plaintiff's back injure [sic] & standing condition." (Id.) However, Plaintiff had not yet "received" the affidavit. (Id. at 1.) He said it would "soon be sent." (Id.) On July 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion to Follow up with Supporting Medical Documents of Plaintiff's Treatments as Discovery. Plaintiff states that the only documents he was "allow[ed]" to obtain from his file were medical records. (Notice at 1-2.) Attached to the Notice are an Operative Report dated May 5, 2010; and Spine Clinic Notes dated June 9, 2010. According to the Operative Report, on May 5, 2010, Plaintiff was given an epidural steroid injection at L4-5 and an S1 facet injection bilaterally. There were no complications from the procedure, and Plaintiff was discharged on the same day. According to the Notes, Plaintiff was seen on June 9, 2010, for follow-up. Significantly, Plaintiff has not explained how this new evidence would alter the Magistrate Judge's recommendation; nor can the Court discern any relevance of these records to the issues addressed on summary judgment.
Plaintiff's remaining objections are meritless.
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted, and that Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.