Lopez v. Florez et al

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/27/12: This action is to proceed on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims as to Defendants Veronica, Reed and Florez for their deliberate indifference in denying pain medication to Plaintiff following his off-site surgery and related state law claims of malpractice and violations of the California Constitution. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

12
13

Case No. 1:08-cv-01975- LJO JLT (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

vs.
(Doc. 28)

14
15
16

FLOREZ, et al.,
Defendants.
/

17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 23, 2011, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened

19

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and issued a findings and

20

recommendations which found that while Plaintiff had stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for

21

deliberate indifference to his medical needs against Defendants Veronica, Reed, and Florez, Plaintiff’s

22

remaining allegations failed to state a cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Doc. 28.)

23

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Eighth

24

Amendment claim against Defendants Veronica, Reed, and Florez. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge

25

advised that any parties intending to file objections must file the objections within twenty one days

26

following service of the findings and recommendations. (Id.) On January 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed

27

objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 30.)

28

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302, the Court has conducted a de novo
1

1

review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court

2

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

5

The findings and recommendations issued December 23, 2011, (Doc. 28), are adopted
in full; and

6

2.

Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference against Defendants Adams, Cate, Clark I,

7

Clark II, Florez, Jackson, Jones, Kelso, Lopez, Macalvaine, McGuinness, Neubarth,

8

Reed, Romero, Sillen, Thomas, Woodford, and Doe #’s 1 through 4, are DISMISSED

9

with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and

10

3.

11

Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims alleging retaliation as to Defendants Reed and Florez
are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and

12

4.

This action is to proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims as to Defendants

13

Veronica, Reed, and Florez for their deliberate indifference in denying pain medication

14

to Plaintiff following his off-site surgery and related state law claims of malpractice and

15

violations of the California Constitution.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:
b9ed48

January 27, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2