Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al

Filing 299

ORDER ADOPTING 291 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 277 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/9/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

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

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

v.
DR. MCGUINESS, et al.

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS WU AND JIMENEZ’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.
(Doc. No. 291)

16
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 defendant McGuinness for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s

21

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The matter was referred to a United

22

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 18, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

23
24

recommendations recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 277)

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28
1

1

be granted.1 (Doc. No. 291.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the undisputed

2

evidence before the court on summary judgment established that: (1) defendant McGuiness did

3

not treat plaintiff; (2) defendant McGuiness’ handling of plaintiff’s inmate appeals did not cause

4

any delay in plaintiff receiving his prescribed medication; and (3) defendant McGuiness is not

5

liable as a matter of law for any of the damages claimed by plaintiff based on supervisory

6

liability. (Id. at 11–14.) The findings and recommendations contained notice that any objections

7

thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 14–15.) Following the

8

granting of an extension of time to do so, plaintiff filed objections on March 5, 2020. (See Doc.

9

Nos. 295–97.)

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.
Plaintiff’s objections do not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s findings that the

14
15

undisputed evidence before the court on summary judgment establishes that he cannot assert a

16

cognizable claim for medical indifference against defendant McGuiness. Plaintiff confusingly

17

argues that: (1) defendant McGuiness “has no legal standing for summary judgment”; and

18

(2) defendant McGuiness’ credibility is a “determination issue reserved for the jury.” (Doc. No.

19

297 at 1–4.) Plaintiff’s objections are not persuasive. A motion for summary judgment pierces

20

the pleadings and puts the opponent to the test of affirmatively coming forward with sufficient

21

evidence for its claims or defenses to create a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

22

477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Neither in his objections to the pending findings and recommendations

23

nor in his opposition to defendant McGuiness’s motion for summary judgment has plaintiff put

24

forth any evidence establishing a disputed issue of material fact or creating a genuine issue for

25

trial. On the other hand, as the pending findings and recommendations note, defendant

26
27
28

1

Defendants Wu and Jimenez filed a separate motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 284)
which the undersigned has granted by adopting a separate set of findings and recommendations
issued by the assigned magistrate judge. (See Doc. Nos. 288, 293.)
2

1

McGuiness has carried her burden as the movant on summary judgment of establishing that under

2

the undisputed facts on summary judgment she is entitled to judgment in her favor.

3

Accordingly,

4

1.

5
6

are adopted in full;
2.

7
8

11
12
13

The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendant McGuiness (Doc.
No. 277) is granted;

3.

9
10

The findings and recommendations issued on February 18, 2020 (Doc. No. 291)

Judgment shall be entered in favor of defendant McGuiness and against plaintiff;
and

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 9, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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