Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al

Filing 293

ORDER ADOPTING 288 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING Defendants Wu and Jimenez's Motion for Summary Judgment; This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order; Judgment shall be entered in favor of defendants Wu and Jimenez and against plaintiff, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/26/2020. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC)

v.
DR. MCGUINESS, DR. WU, and RN
JIMENEZ,
Defendants.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS WU AND JIMENEZ’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. No. 288)

17
Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18
19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on plaintiff’s

20

fifth amended complaint against defendants Wu, Jimenez, and McGuinness for deliberate

21

indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The

22

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

23

Local Rule 302.
On February 5, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

24
25

recommending that the defendants motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendants

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

Wu and Jimenez (Doc. No. 284) be granted.1 (Doc. No. 288.) Specifically, the magistrate judge

2

found that the undisputed evidence before the court on summary judgment established that: (1)

3

defendant Wu did not act with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs when he

4

reduced the strength of plaintiff’s glaucoma medication dosage; and (2) defendant Jimenez did

5

not have the authority to refill prescriptions and thus could not have been deliberately indifferent

6

to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in the manner plaintiff claims. (Id. at 9–13.) The findings

7

and recommendations contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within

8

fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 15.) Following the granting of an extension of time to do

9

so, plaintiff filed objections on February 20, 2020. (Doc. No. 292.)

10

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

11

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

12

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

13

by proper analysis.
Similar to plaintiff’s position as stated in his opposition to the pending motion for

14
15

summary judgment (see Doc. No. 285), in his objections plaintiff contends that the undisputed

16

facts the magistrate judge relied on are not undisputed because they have not been decided by a

17

jury. (See Doc. No. 292 at 1–5.) As the findings and recommendations correctly point out,

18

however, “[a] motion for summary judgment ‘pierces’ the pleadings and puts the opponent to the

19

test of affirmatively coming forward with sufficient evidence for its claims or defenses to create a

20

genuine issue for trial.” (Doc. No. 288) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325

21

(1986)). Neither plaintiff’s objections to the pending findings and recommendations nor his

22

opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment puts forth any evidence establishing a

23

disputed issue of material fact or creating a genuine issue for trial. Moreover, the objections do

24

not otherwise dispute the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.

25

/////

26

1

27
28

Defendant McGuiness has filed a separate motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 277) which
the magistrate judge has addressed in separate findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 291).
The objection period with respect to the findings and recommendations addressing defendant
McGuiness’ motion for summary judgment has not yet expired. (See id.)
2

1

Accordingly,

2

1.

3
4

adopted in full;
2.

5
6

3.

11
12

Judgment shall be entered in favor of defendants Wu and Jimenez and against
plaintiff; and

4.

9
10

The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendants Wu and Jimenez
(Doc. No. 284) is granted;

7
8

The findings and recommendations issued on February 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 288) are

This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 26, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3