Freddy Leyva v. Jeri Shepherd

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 FREDDY LEYVA, Case No. CV 23-00990 SSS (RAO)

13 Plaintiff,

14 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 15 JERI SHEPHERD, et al., RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Second 19 Amended Complaint (“SAC”), the Report and Recommendation of United States 20 Magistrate Judge (“Report”) dated July 13, 2023, Dkt. No. 21, Plaintiff’s Letter 21 received August 7, 2023, which the Court construes as Plaintiff’s Objections to the 22 Report, Dkt. No. 23, and all other records and files herein. 23 The Court has further engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the 24 Report to which Plaintiff has objected and does not find that Plaintiff’s objections 25 have merit. Specifically, Plaintiff’s objections regarding gum pain and tooth 26 sensitivity do not warrant a change to the Report’s finding that Plaintiff has failed to 27 allege either a serious medical need or a deliberately indifferent response. (Dkt. No. 28 21 at 6-7). 1 Plaintiff has not alleged a serious medical need because, as the Report found, 2 || Plaintiff has alleged that his missing teeth have limited him only in “communication 3 || with peers and the way he opens salad dressing and eats apples.” (Dkt. No. 21 at 6). 4 || Thus, Plaintiff's “medical condition was ... not as exigent as that of the petitioner 5 || in Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198 (9th Cir.1989), who suffered from bleeding 6 || and infected gums and had his request to be placed on a soft food diet denied.” Miles 7 || v. Daniels, 231 F. App’x 591, 592 (9th Cir. 2007). 8 Plaintiff also has not alleged a deliberately indifferent response because, as the 9 || Report found, he has received regular dental care without a denial, delay, or 10 || intentional inference with treatment. (Dkt. No. 21 at 7 (citing Dkt. No. 10 at 6)). 11 || Moreover, Plaintiffs disagreement with the opinion of prison dentists that a deep 12 || cleaning must precede the provision of partial dentures does not a state a claim of 13 || deliberate indifference. (Dkt. No. 21 at 7). 14 Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, 15 || and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 16 IT IS ORDERED that: 17 (1) Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims are dismissed with prejudice; and 18 (2) The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims and 19 dismisses those claims without prejudice. 20 21 || DATED: August 29, 2023 4 j SUNSHINE SUZ ESYKES 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28