Jorgenson v. Moore et al

Filing 123

ORDER ADOPTING 120 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Case and DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge and Close Case, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/25/2020. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Paul Jorgenson,

12

No. 1:17-cv-00817-NONE-EPG (PC)
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

Richard B. Haak, M.D. et al.,

15

Defendant.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CASE
AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT
TO ASSIGNG A DISTRICT JUDGE AND
CLOSE CASE
(Doc. Nos. 117, 120)

17
18
Plaintiff Paul Jorgenson is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

19
20

this case. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

21

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

This case now proceeds on plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which was

23

filed on July 12, 2018. (Doc. No. 19.) The case is proceeding on plaintiff’s state tort claims for

24

medical negligence against defendants Haak, Randhawa, and Emanuel Medical Center, and his

25

state tort claims for battery against defendants Haak and Emanuel Medical Center. (Doc. No. 21

26

at 2; Doc. No. 95 at 3; Doc. No. 104 at 2; Doc. No. 105 at 2.) Plaintiff originally asserted federal

27

claims in this case, but those federal claims were dismissed on January 28, 2020 (Doc. Nos. 104,

28

105.)
1

1

On May 13, 2020, defendants Emanuel Medical Center (“EMC”) and Jaspal Randhawa

2

(“Randhawa”) moved “the Court for an Order to dismiss this matter by declining supplemental

3

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and Defendants under Rule 12b(1) [sic] and 28

4

U.S.C. § 1367(c).” (Doc. No. 117.) Neither plaintiff nor defendant Haak opposed or otherwise

5

responded to the motion.

6

On June 29, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations,

7

recommending that defendants EMC and Randhawa’s motion to dismiss/request for the court to

8

decline supplemental jurisdiction be granted and that plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed

9

without prejudice to plaintiff bringing the claims in state court. (Doc. No. 120 at 4–5.)

10
11
12

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

13

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

14

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

15

Accordingly, the court orders:

16

1.

17

2020 (Doc. No. 120), are ADOPTED in full;

18

2.

19

decline supplemental jurisdiction is granted (Doc. No. 117);

20

3.

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims;

21

4.

The remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff bringing the

22

claims in state court;

23

5.

All other outstanding motions are denied without prejudice; and

24

6.

The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose

25

of closing the case and then to close this case.

26
27
28

The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on June 29,

Defendants EMC and Randhawa’s motion to dismiss/request for the court to

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 25, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

1
2
3
4
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