Lear v. Manasrah

Filing 87

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 55 , 62 , 59 , 70 , 85 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/26/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:17-cv-00071-DAD-JDP

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

DAVE DAVEY, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 55, 62, 59, 70, 85)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

19

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On September 3, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

21

recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, and

22

that plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment, temporary restraining order, and sanctions be

23

denied. (Doc. No. 85). The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and

24

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after

25

service. (Id. at 3.) On September 13, 2019, plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 86.)

26

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

27

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

28

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported
1

1
2

by the record and by proper analysis.
In his objections, plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge failed to consider certain

3

evidence and should have found that genuine issues of material fact existed so as to preclude

4

summary judgment in favor of defendants. Thus, for instance, plaintiff argues that the assigned

5

magistrate judge improperly sided with defendants in concluding that plaintiff’s medical

6

condition had improved, because of which the magistrate judge found that the method of

7

transportation to medical care provided to plaintiff was adequate. (Doc. No. 86 at 3.) However,

8

nowhere in the findings and recommendations did the magistrate judge make any factual

9

determination as to whether plaintiff’s condition had improved or been resolved entirely. Even

10

had the magistrate judge made such a determination and done so in plaintiff’s favor, plaintiff’s

11

claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need would not be supported by the evidence

12

before the court on summary judgment. Plaintiff evidently disagrees with the conclusions

13

reached by his treating doctor, but that amounts only to a difference of opinion regarding the

14

proper course and scope of his medical treatment. As the assigned magistrate judge recognized,

15

such mere disagreements are not actionable under the Eighth Amendment. See Toguchi v. Chung,

16

391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004).

17

Accordingly,

18

1.

19

The findings and recommendations issued on September 3, 2019 (Doc. No. 85) are
adopted in full;

20

2.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc No. 55) is granted;

21

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc No. 62) is denied;

22

4.

Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining orders (Doc Nos. 59, 70) are denied;

23

5.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Doc No. 64) is denied;

24

6.

This action is dismissed with prejudice; and

25

7.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 26, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2