1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No. 5:22-cv-01797-FWS-KS 11

12 HENRY NAVARRO, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 CONCLUSIONS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 v.

16 SAN BERNADINO SHERIFFS 17 DEPARTMENTS MEDICAL STAFF ET AL., 18

19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural History

2 Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation issued 3 on May 1, 2023 (the “Report and Recommendation”), (Dkt. 14), regarding the claims 4 of Plaintiff Henry Navarro (“Plaintiff”), as stated in the Second Amended Complaint, 5 (Dkt. 11). Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court 6 adopts the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge, including 7 each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein. 8 On or about October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint (the 9 “Complaint”) against several defendants, including the San Bernardino Sheriff’s 10 Department Medical Staff, PA/RN Jarmen, and RN April. (Dkt. 1.) On or about 11 October 25, 2022, the Magistrate Judge dismissed the Complaint. (Dkt. 5.) On or 12 about November 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 13 (Dkt. 7.) On or about January 9, 2023, the Magistrate Judge dismissed the FAC. 14 (Dkt. 9.) After the Magistrate Judge issued on Order to Show Cause on February 27, 15 2023, (Dkt. 10), Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on or about 16 March 27, 2023. (Dkt. 11) On May 1, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report 17 and Recommendation. (Dkt 14.) On or about May 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed an 18 Objection to the Report and Recommendation (the “Objection”). (Dkt. 15.) 19 II. Analysis 20 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 21 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must 23 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 24 properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 25 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 26 magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written 27 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of 1 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to

2 which objection is made.”

(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna- 3 Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the 4 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 5 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made, 6 arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See

(b)(1)(C) 7 (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file 8 written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by 9 rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the 10 same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v. 11 Haynes,

, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021). 12 In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends 13 “DISMISSING the SAC in its entirety without leave.” (Dkt. 14 at 11.) More 14 specifically, in the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded, in 15 summary: (1) the SAC did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, (see

); (2) the 16 SAC fails to adequate plead an Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference Claim, 17 (see

); (3); and the SAC fails to adequately state a claim or claims against 18 the Medical Staff and Sheriff’s Department, (see

). 19 In the Objection, in summary, Plaintiff responds to the reasons provided for 20 dismissal of the SAC in the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 15.) For example, 21 Plaintiff states that: (1) “I felt there was no necessity to input dates, when dates were 22 on (Docket[] #7) but with standing it should have included dates…if defendants were 23 confused at all they could have referred back to (Docket[] #7).” (See

.) In the 24 Objection, Plaintiff also seeks to clarify his claims in the SAC by stating, “To clarify, 25 I’m su[]ing P.A. Jarmen, R.N. Rios and the San Bernardino Sheriffs Medical Staff in 26 the[ir] official & individual capacity, under the Eighth am[]endment, a claim for 27 inadequate medical care the relief I’m asking for is $270,000.000 and my foot / toe 28 repair.” (See

.) 1 In this case, after conducting a de novo review of Plaintiff's Objections and 2 | Defendant’s Reply to the Report and Recommendation, the court agrees with each of 3 | the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and Recommendation, 4 | including the recommendations the District Court issue an order “(1) accepting [the] 5 | Report and Recommendation; and (2) DISMISSING the SAC in its entirety without 6 | leave to amend.” (Dkt. 14 at 11.) Accordingly, the contents of the Objection are 7 | OVERRULED on their merits. 8 In sum, pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the record, 9 | including the Report and Recommendation, the Second Amended Complaint, the 10 | Objection, and the other records of the case. After conducting a de novo 11 | determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff's 12 | Objections pertain, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of 13 | the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. 14 Ill. Conclusion 15 Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the Court 16 | adopts the Report and Recommendation, including each of the findings of fact and 17 | conclusions of law therein. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES THE SECOND 18 | AMENDED COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT LEAVE TO 19 | AMEND. 20 21 | DATED: June 21, 2023 22 Lo L/ /— 23 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 04 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 26 27 28