Coston v. Clark et al

Filing 62

ORDER GRANTING 58 Motion for Reconsideration and REAFFIRMING Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations; Case to Remain CLOSED signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/9/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DANNY M. COSTON, CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00148-AWI-MJS 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 v. J.K. YU, Defendant. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND REAFFIRMING ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF NO. 58) CASE TO REMAIN CLOSED 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case, which was proceeding 19 against Defendant Dr. Yu on a single Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim, was 20 recently closed upon adoption by the undersigned of the magistrate judge’s 21 recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to grant summary 22 judgment for Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). 23 Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 24 Procedure 59 and 60 on the ground that his timely objections to the findings and 25 recommendations were not considered by the Court prior to their adoption. Indeed, 26 these objections—dated and submitted for institutional mailing on September 11, 2017— 27 were filed on October 2, 2017, well after the fourteen-day deadline set forth in the 28 August 28, 2017, findings and recommendations and after judgment was entered on 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 September 21, 2017. The Court has now considered Plaintiff’s objections and, for the reasons stated below, hereby reaffirms the order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. The magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied due to his failure to submit sufficient evidence showing that Dr. Yu’s treatment of him was medically unacceptable under the circumstances. In light of the evidence presented, the magistrate judge also recommended pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that summary judgment be entered sua sponte for Defendant. In his objections to the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff attempts to cure some of the evidentiary deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge by submitting a supplemental declaration with two medical record attachments. He also asks the Court to reconsider the evidence submitted with his motion for summary judgment, arguing that the magistrate judge erred in his interpretation of that evidence. Plaintiff does not explain why the additional medical records were not submitted with his motion initially, and the objections do not raise new or additional legal arguments that were not previously presented. In any event, the presentation of additional facts and arguments support the recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to enter judgment for Defendant. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 58) is GRANTED. The Court reaffirms the order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. This case will remain closed. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: February 9, 2018 25 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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?