Luna v. Moon, et al.

Filing 60

ORDER ADOPTING 58 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING In Part and DENYING In Part Defendants' 43 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/12/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWARD LUNA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:16-cv-00313-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

v.
DR. MOON, et al.,

(ECF Nos. 43-46, 48-49, 51-52, 58, 59)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Edward Luna (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary on
August 1, 2018, which was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 10, 2019, the magistrate judge filed a findings and recommendations. The
findings and recommendations recommended granting in part and denying in part Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. The findings and recommendations was served on the parties
and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed
within thirty days from the date of service.
On February 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed objections stating that he agreed with the findings
and recommendations. Defendants have not filed a timely objection.

28

1

1

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

2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the
3 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

FULL;

6
7

The findings and recommendations, filed January 10, 2019, is ADOPTED IN

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND

8

DENIED IN PART as follows:

9

a.

Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s claims related

10

to his left hand or wrist, left carpal tunnel injury, foot, neck, and cervical

11

spine or lumbar injury is GRANTED for failure to exhaust administrative

12

remedies;
b.

13

Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s claims

14

alleging a denial of pain medication for his right hand, wrist, and arm

15

complaints during 2012 is GRANTED for failure to

16

administrative remedies;
c.

17

exhaust

Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Wang is DENIED;

18
d.

19

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Ulit,

20

Moon, and Wang regarding denial of pain medication and failure to refer

21

him for treatment for his right arm, wrist, and shoulder pain beginning in

22

February 2013; and

23

3.

This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for issuance of a scheduling
order.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

February 12, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
28

2