Hisle v. Conanon, et al.

Filing 136

ORDER ADOPTING 121 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 107 Defendant Conanan's Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/6/2020. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DENNIS CURTIS HISLE,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT CONANAN’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARLYN CONANAN, et al.,

15

No. 1:17-cv-01400-NONE-SAB (PC)

Defendants.

(Doc. Nos. 107, 121, 125, 126)

16
17

Plaintiff Dennis Curtis Hisle, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this civil

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an alleged violation of his Eighth

19

Amendment rights. Plaintiff claims that defendants—medical personnel at Pleasant Valley State

20

Prison and Mercy Hospital of Bakersfield—were deliberately indifferent in treating his broken

21

ribs and internal bleeding. (Doc. No. 114 at 2–4.) One of the defendants, Dr. Marylyn Conanan,

22

moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust the inmate grievance

23

procedures before filing this suit as is required. (Doc. No. 107.) On August 3, 2020, the assigned

24

magistrate judge found the inmate grievance plaintiff lodged regarding this instance of medical

25

care to indisputably establish that he “did not include allegations that Defendant Conanan

26

falsified medical records, failed to provide Plaintiff with a lay in, and failed to urgently refer

27

Plaintiff to a pulmonologist,” and, as a result, plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

28

remedies with respect to the asserted Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Conanan based
1

1

on those allegations. (Doc. No. 121 at 9.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended to

2

dismiss plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Conanan. (Id. at 12.) On

3

September 2, 2020, plaintiff objected to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 126.)

4

Defendant responded thereto on September 21, 2020. (Doc. No. 129.)

5

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

6

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

7

court finds that the pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and

8

proper analysis, and that plaintiff’s objections fail to meaningfully address or contradict the

9

analysis set forth in the findings and recommendations.

10
11
12
13
14

Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 3, 2020 (Doc. No. 121) are
ADOPTED in full;
2. Defendant Conanan’s motion for summary judgment filed on March 2, 2020 (Doc. No.
107) is GRANTED; and

15

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Conanan for allegedly falsifying medical records,

16

failing to provide plaintiff with a lay in, and failing to urgently refer plaintiff to a

17

pulmonologist are DISMISSED without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his

18

administrative remedies with respect to those claims prior to filing suit as required.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 6, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2