Jorgenson v. Moore et al

Filing 97

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING 93 Findings and Recommendations re 46 signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/2/2019. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

PAUL JORGENSON,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-00817-LJO-EPG (PC)
AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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 Bivens

21

claim against the four unknown correctional officers, his state tort claims for medical

22

negligence against Defendants Haak, Randhawa, and Emanuel Medical Center, and his state

23

tort claims for battery against Defendants Haak and Emanuel Medical Center. (ECF No. 21, p.

24

2; ECF No. 95, p. 3).

25

On January 17, 2019, defendant Haak filed a partial motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 46).

26

On February 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition to defendant Haak’s motion to dismiss.

27

(ECF No. 57). Defendant Haak filed his reply on February 12, 2019. (ECF No. 59).

28

On September 24, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and
1

1

recommendations, recommending that defendant Haak’s partial motion to dismiss be denied.

2

(ECF No. 93, p. 9).

3

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and

4

recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed and no objections have been

5

filed.

6

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

7

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

8

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

9

analysis.

10

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

11

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September 24,

12

2019, are ADOPTED in full; and

13

2. Defendant Haak’s partial motion to dismiss is DENIED (the Court will address the

14

portion of the motion to dismiss that was converted to a motion for summary

15

judgment in a separate order).

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

November 2, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2