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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?