Taylor v. Patel et al

Filing 50

ORDER DENYING 36 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER ADOPTING 48 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDERED that this action shall proceed against Defendants on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claims, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/15/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DELTON TAYLOR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-MJS (PC)

v.
HARISHKUMAR PATEL, et al.,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Defendants.
(Doc. No. 48, 36)

16

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

17
18

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

19
20

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

21

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
This case proceeds against defendants Drs. Patel and Le on plaintiff’s claim for deliberate

22
23

indifference to his serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment based upon the

24

defendants’ alleged denial of adequate treatment for plaintiff’s back pain. (Doc. No. 9.) On

25

November 16, 2016, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 36.) On

26

August 3, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

27

recommending that defendants’ motion be denied in its entirety. (Doc. No. 48.)

28

/////
1

1

The parties were granted fourteen days to file their objections to the findings and

2

recommendations. Defendants filed their objections on August 7, 2017. (Doc. No. 49.) Plaintiff

3

did not respond to those objections.

4

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

5

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

6

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

7

Defendants object that there is no evidence before the court on summary judgment

8

showing that Drs. Patel and Le were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s complaints of severe

9

back pain. (Doc. No. 49 at 2.) Defendants also contend that plaintiff’s arguments instead reflect

10

a mere difference of opinion between a prisoner and a prison medical staff regarding the

11

appropriate medical treatment, which does not give rise to a claim for deliberate indifference. (Id.

12

at 4.) Defendants’ objections reiterate arguments that were already considered and properly

13

rejected by the magistrate judge. The court adopts the magistrate judge’s findings that a disputed

14

issue of material fact exists as to whether Dr. Patel was deliberately indifferent with respect to

15

“plaintiff’s complaints of severe back pain by refusing to review his medical records, refusing to

16

prescribe a more powerful pain medication, refusing to continue beneficial physical therapy, and

17

in effect jumping to the conclusion that there was ‘nothing wrong’ with plaintiff.” (Doc. No. 48

18

at 12.) Likewise, a disputed issue of material fact exists as to whether Dr. Le was also

19

deliberately indifferent with respect to plaintiff’s complaints of severe back pain by reporting that

20

plaintiff had no difficulty walking, stating that there was no reason for him not to be able to raise

21

his legs higher upon physical examination, refusing to refer plaintiff to a specialist, and refusing

22

to look at plaintiff’s medical records and x-ray. (Id. at 8–9, 12.) These conclusions were drawn

23

after reviewing declarations and depositions, and evidence properly submitted on summary

24

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).

25

Accordingly, it his HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

26

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 3, 2017 (Doc. No. 49) are adopted

27
28

in full;
/////
2

1

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and

2

3. This action will proceed against defendants on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

3
4
5

inadequate medical care claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 15, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3