Thomas David Sides v. Hossini et al, No. 2:2022cv08334 - Document 50 (C.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Dolly M. Gee for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 49 . IT IS ORDERED that: The Delman Motion is GRANTED and Defendant Delman is dismissed with prejudice. The Hosseini Motion is GRANTED and the First Amended Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to afford Plaintiff a final chance to attempt to state a viable Eighth Amendment-based Bivens claim against Defendant Hosseini. Defendant Dr. Saroj Gulan i is dismissed without prejucie. The Amendment Motion is DENIED; If Plaintiff wishes to purse this action, he must file and serve Defendant Hosseini a Second Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order that correct defects of the First Amended Complaint as outlined in the Report. (et)

Download PDF
Thomas David Sides v. Hossini et al Doc. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS DAVID SIDES, 12 13 14 15 Case No. CV 22-08334-DMG (GJS) Plaintiff v. DR. SEYED S. HOSSEINI, et al., ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendants. 16 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 19 Complaint [Doc. # 9], all relevant documents filed and lodged in this action, the 20 motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Dr. Allan Delman [Doc. # 36, “Delman 21 Motion”] and the parties’ related briefing [Doc. ## 40, 46], the motion to dismiss 22 filed by Defendant Dr. Seyed S. Hosseini [Doc. # 38, “Hosseini Motion”] and the 23 parties’ related briefing [Doc. ## 41, 45], Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Complaint 24 to Correct” [Doc. # 47, “Amendment Motion”], and the Report and 25 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge addressing these three motions 26 [Doc. # 49, “Report”]. No Objections to the Report have been filed with the Court 27 and the time for doing so has expired. 28 Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.