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)

Download PDF
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

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?