Bettencourt v. Parks et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING 38 Findings and Recommendations; this action shall proceed only on plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims against defendant Crooks for pulling two teeth that did not need to be pulled and against defendants Parker and Guzman for filing down six healthy teeth with a dental tool used for drilling cavities; action referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/30/2020. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARY RAY BETTENCOURT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:16-cv-00150-DAD-BAM (PC)

v.
L. PARKER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS
(Doc. No. 38)

16
Plaintiff Gary Ray Bettencourt is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

17
18

in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a

19

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 10, 2018,1 the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

20
21

recommendations finding that plaintiff had stated cognizable claims for deliberate indifference in

22

violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights against defendant Crooks for pulling two of

23

plaintiff’s teeth that allegedly did not need to be pulled and against defendants Parker and

24

Guzman for filing down six healthy teeth with a dental tool used for drilling cavities. (Doc. No.

25

38 at 2, 6–7.) The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff had failed to state any other

26
27
28

1

The court apologizes to the parties for the extensive delay in the issuance of this order. Due to
an oversight, until very recently the undersigned was unaware that the October 10, 2018 findings
and recommendations were pending.
1

1

cognizable claims. (Id. at 2, 5–7.) In addition, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff had

2

already been given an opportunity to amend his original complaint, with ample guidance from the

3

court, and that the deficiencies in his first amended complaint were not capable of being cured by

4

amendment. (Id. at 6.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that this action proceed

5

only on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants and that the remainder of

6

plaintiff’s claims in the First Amended Complaint be dismissed. (Id.) The pending findings and

7

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were

8

to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 7.) On October 22, 2018, plaintiff filed

9

objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 39.)

10

In his objections, plaintiff does not address or dispute any of the findings and

11

recommendations. Rather, plaintiff merely restates the basis for his claim and attaches the same

12

exhibits that were already considered by the magistrate judge before issuing the pending findings

13

and recommendations. (Id.) Thus, plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject

14

the pending findings and recommendations.

15

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

16

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

17

objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the

18

record and proper analysis.

19

Accordingly,

20

1.

21

The findings and recommendations issued on October 11, 2018 (Doc. No. 38) are
adopted in full;

22

2.

This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against

23

defendant Crooks for pulling two teeth that did not need to be pulled and against

24

defendants Parker and Guzman for filing down six healthy teeth with a dental tool

25

used for drilling cavities;

26

3.

27

/////

28

All other claims are dismissed; and

/////
2

1

4.

2
3
4

This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 30, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3