United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS; (2)
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND (3) GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 63, 83, 87)
JANIS L. SAMMARTINO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendants D. Garcia, F. Martinez, and G.
Casian's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63).
Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major submitted a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R, ” ECF No. 83)
recommending Defendants' Motion be Granted in Part and
Denied in Part. Plaintiff David Vincent Carson submitted
Objections to the R&R (“Objs., ” ECF No. 87),
and Defendants submitted a Reply to those Objections (ECF No.
Major's R&R contains a complete and accurate
recitation of the relevant factual and procedural history
underlying Plaintiff's claims and Defendants' Motion.
See generally R&R. This Order incorporates by
reference the background as set forth therein.
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
set forth a district court's duties in connection with a
magistrate judge's R&R. The district court must
“make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made, ” and “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); see also United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980). In the absence of
a timely objection, however, the Court “need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note (citing
Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th
Motion for Summary Judgment argues that “(1) Defendant
Garcia is ‘entitled to summary judgment as to
Plaintiff's failure-to-protect claim because she did not
witness or participate in the force incident[, ]' (2)
Defendant Martinez is entitled to summary judgment
‘because Plaintiff's retaliation claim is barred by
the favorable determination doctrine[, ]' and (3)
Defendant Casian is entitled to summary judgment because
‘Plaintiff's constant and progressive medical
care' does not demonstrate that she was deliberately
indifferent to [Plaintiff's] medical needs.”
R&R at 2 (citing MSJ).
Judge Major recommends the Court (1) deny Defendants'
Motion as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment
failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Garcia, (2) grant
Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiff's First Amendment
retaliation claim against Defendant Martinez as it pertains
to conduct underlying the Rules Violation Report
(“RVR”) prepared by Defendant Martinez, but deny
the Motion to the extent the claim is based upon conduct
unrelated to the RVR, and (3) grant Defendants' motion as
to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
claim against Defendant Casian. See generally
Parties have not objected to Magistrate Judge Major's
R&R as it pertains to the claims against Defendant
Martinez and Defendant Garcia. The Court finds the R&R is
well reasoned and contains no clear error and therefore
ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety as it
pertains to these claims.
has objected to the R&R as it pertains to the claim
against Defendant Casian. First, Plaintiff objects to
Magistrate Judge Major's conclusion that “[e]ven
viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not presented evidence creating a
triable issue of fact as to whether Defendant Casian was
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical
needs.” R&R at 26. Plaintiff argues that Magistrate
Judge Major misconstrued the evidence it relied on in
reaching her conclusion and that the evidence and relevant
case law supports his claim that the delay in receiving the
medical care he requested creates a triable issue of fact.
Objs. at 1-11.
Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Major's conclusion
that “there is no evidence to support Plaintiff's
claim that Defendant Casian terminated all of Plaintiff's
accommodation chronos.” R&R at 30. Plaintiff argues
that, contrary to Magistrate Judge Major's findings, the
medical records show that Defendant Casian “arbitrarily
and capriciously, based on personal animosity, canceled [the
medical chronos] before they were set for ‘annual
review.'” Objs. at 12.
de novo review of the R&R's reasoning, the
record evidence, and applicable legal authorities, the Court
concludes it must agree with Magistrate Judge Major's
recommendations. With regard to Plaintiff's claim that
Defendant Casian delayed medical treatment, the Court agrees
that, at most, the evidence shows a difference of opinion
between Plaintiff and Defendant Casian regarding the
appropriate medical treatment. See Sanchez v. Vild,
891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A difference of
opinion does not amount to a deliberate indifference to
[plaintiff's] serious medical needs.”).
Plaintiff's claim that Defendant Casian terminated
Plaintiff's chronos, the Court agrees that there is no
evidence to support Plaintiff's claim. See
R&R at 30. To the extent Plaintiff argues that Defendant
Casian violated his Eighth Amendment rights by limiting the
duration of the lower bunk chronos, the Court finds this
argument equally without merit. “[A]t most, it could be
considered a difference of opinion between Plaintiff and
Defendant Casian as to the appropriate length of the
limitation.” Id. at 31 ...