Salazar v. Kokor et al

Filing 43

ORDER Adopting 41 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendant's 32 Motion for Summary Judgment; Case to Remain Open signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/18/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EFRAIN SALAZAR,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:14-cv-00211-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(ECF No. 41)
WINFRED KOKOR,
Defendant.

16

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 32)

17
CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

18
19
20

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

21 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against
22 Defendant Dr. Winfred Kokor on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference
23 claim. (ECF No. 19.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District
25 Court for the Eastern District of California.
26

On July 13, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations to

27 grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 41.)
28 Defendant filed objections. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff filed no response.

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has

2 conducted a de novo review of this case. Defendant’s objections advance the same
3 arguments raised in his motion for summary judgment. These matters were addressed
4 by the Magistrate Judge, who found that questions of fact remain as to whether
5 Defendant Kokor was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs by
6 failing to provide adequate pain medication. The Magistrate Judge also found that
7 Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to the part of Plaintiff’s Eighth
8 Amendment medical indifference claim that is based on Defendant’s denial of morphine.
9 The objections do not undermine this Court’s agreement with the findings and
10 recommendations. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings
11 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court adopts the July 13, 2017 findings and recommendations (ECF
No. 41) in full;
2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART; and
3. Plaintiff’s claim relating to the denial of morphine is summarily adjudicated
in Defendant’s favor.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: September 18, 2017

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2