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)

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