Jorgenson v. Moore et al
Filing
96
ORDER ADOPTING 93 Findings and Recommendations signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/30/2019. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
PAUL JORGENSON,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00817-LJO-EPG (PC)
11
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
12
13
14
v.
(ECF Nos. 46 & 93)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
Paul Jorgenson (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis in this action. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to
18
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second
19
Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which was filed on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 19). This case is
20
proceeding “on Plaintiff’s FTCA claim against the United States, his Eighth Amendment
21
Bivens claim against the four unknown correctional officers, and his state tort claims for
22
medical negligence and battery against Defendants Haak, Randhawa, and Emanuel Medical
23
Center.” (ECF No. 21, p. 2).
24
On January 17, 2019, defendant Haak filed a partial motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 46).
25
On February 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition to defendant Haak’s motion to dismiss.
26
(ECF No. 57). Defendant Haak filed his reply on February 12, 2019. (ECF No. 59).
27
On September 24, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and
28
recommendations, recommending that defendant Haak’s partial motion to dismiss be denied.
1
1
(ECF No. 93, p. 9).
2
The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
3
recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed and no objections have been
4
filed.
5
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
6
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
7
the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
8
analysis.
9
10
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September 24,
11
2019, are ADOPTED in full; and
12
2. Defendant Haak’s partial motion to dismiss is DENIED (the Court will address the
13
portion of the motion to dismiss that was converted to a motion for summary
14
judgment in a separate order).
15
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
October 30, 2019
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?