Opinion
CV 23-00990 SSS (RAO)
08-29-2023
FREDDY LEYVA, Plaintiff, v. JERI SHEPHERD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SUNSHINE SUZANNE SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) dated July 13, 2023, Dkt. No. 21, Plaintiff's Letter received August 7, 2023, which the Court construes as Plaintiff's Objections to the Report, Dkt. No. 23, and all other records and files herein.
The Court has further engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected and does not find that Plaintiff's objections have merit. Specifically, Plaintiff's objections regarding gum pain and tooth sensitivity do not warrant a change to the Report's finding that Plaintiff has failed to allege either a serious medical need or a deliberately indifferent response. (Dkt. No. 21 at 6-7).
Plaintiff has not alleged a serious medical need because, as the Report found, Plaintiff has alleged that his missing teeth have limited him only in “communication with peers and the way he opens salad dressing and eats apples.” (Dkt. No. 21 at 6). Thus, Plaintiff's “medical condition was . . . not as exigent as that of the petitioner in Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198 (9th Cir.1989), who suffered from bleeding and infected gums and had his request to be placed on a soft food diet denied.” Miles v. Daniels, 231 Fed.Appx. 591, 592 (9th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff also has not alleged a deliberately indifferent response because, as the Report found, he has received regular dental care without a denial, delay, or intentional inference with treatment. (Dkt. No. 21 at 7 (citing Dkt. No. 10 at 6)). Moreover, Plaintiff's disagreement with the opinion of prison dentists that a deep cleaning must precede the provision of partial dentures does not a state a claim of deliberate indifference. (Dkt. No. 21 at 7).
Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims are dismissed with prejudice; and
(2) The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.