Madrid v. Cates et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 ; DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983; ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(G) and ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/22/2014. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ESROM MADRID,

12
13
14
15

1:10-cv-02136-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 24.)

vs.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY
BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983

MATTHEW CATES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT
TO 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(G)

18

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

19
20

Esrom Madrid (Aplaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

21

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

22

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23

On February 12, 2014, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that

24

this action be dismissed based on plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

25

granted under §1983. (Doc. 24.) On May 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings

26

and recommendations. (Doc. 27.)

27

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

28

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
1

1

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

2

supported by the record and proper analysis. The complaint alleges Defendants’ failure to treat

3

his medical condition. Plaintiff did receive treatment, but Plaintiff claims that it was inadequate

4

to control his pain and symptoms. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the deliberate

5

indifference doctrine required to state an Eighth Amendment claim is limited in scope.

6

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012). “Medical malpractice does not

7

become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble,

8

429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1977). Further, a “difference of opinion between a physician

9

and the prisoner - or between medical professionals - concerning what medical care is

10

appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987

11

(9th Cir. 2012), overruled in part on other grounds by, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-

12

83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122-23. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to

13

state a claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

14

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

15

1.

16
17

12, 2014, are adopted in full;
2.

18
19

This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on plaintiff=s failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983;

3.

20
21

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on February

This dismissal is subject to the Athree-strikes@ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. '
1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011); and

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

22

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 22, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2