Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hill v. San Diego Sheriff's Department

United States District Court, S.D. California

July 13, 2015

JOSEPH ANTHONY HILL, Plaintiff,
v.
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, Defendants.

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)

LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge.

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.
(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.

(Docket no. 12 at 14-15.)

Objections to the R&R were due on June 26, 2015. Hill didn't file an objection. "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). "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). 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) (en banc).

The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and agrees with its rationale and conclusions. The R&R is ADOPTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.