Richard Gosztyla v. Auld, et al.

Opinion

RICHARD GOSZTYLA, No. 2:22-cv-01276-KJM-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER AULD, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff proceeds without counsel in this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 5, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court adopts the findings and recommendations in part, to the extent they grant defendants’ motion for summary ///// ///// judgment, ECF No. 54. Specifically, the court adopts the following portions of the findings and recommendations: • Pages 1–6 and page 7, lines 1–17,1 addressing the background of the case and recommending granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment medical privacy claim under Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 2010). • Page 14, lines 3–24, addressing plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies on his Eighth Amendment claim as required under California Code of Regulations title 15 section 3084(c)(2). The court declines to adopt the balance of the findings and recommendations, finding it unnecessary to reach the magistrate judge’s additional recommendations in order to resolve the pending summary judgment motion.2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 5, 2025 (ECF No. 64) are adopted in part as described in this order; 2. Defendants’ January 31, 2025 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 54) is GRANTED; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the case. DATED: October 5, 2025. 1 When citing page numbers on filings bearing the pagination automatically generated by the CM/ECF system, the court uses the CM/ECF pagination. 2 On their face, the findings and recommendations themselves make clear the additional analyses are not essential to the magistrate judge’s ultimate conclusion. For example, the court declines to adopt those portions of the findings and recommendations that address dismissal, which the court previously has addressed and resolved. See Order, ECF No. 62.