Cortinas v. Gill, Jr. et al

Filing 55

ORDER ADOPTING 52 Findings and Recommendations to GRANT Defendants' 28 Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/21/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY WILLIAMS CORTINAS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
RAVIJOT GILL, JR., et al.,

No. 1:18-cv-00515-NONE-HBK
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
(Doc. No. 52)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Larry Williams Cortinas, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) This action

19

proceeds on plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 17.)

20

On September 1, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

21

recommendations that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. No. 52.) Specifically, the

22

magistrate judge reasoned that most of the claims asserted by plaintiff in the complaint were

23

barred by a settlement agreement reached in a previous case. (Id. at 6–8.) In addition, the

24

magistrate judge explained that, although the present case does advance one claim (concerning

25

treatment of plaintiff’s cysts) that is not encompassed within and barred by the parties’ prior

26

settlement agreement, the remaining allegation fails to state a claim for deliberate indifference.

27

(Id. at 10–11.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained

28

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at

1

11.) On September 13, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations,

2

arguing, inter alia, that the prior settlement agreement did not release the defendants in the instant

3

case. (Doc. No. 54.)

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

5

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

6

objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are

7

supported by the record and by proper analysis. The magistrate judge has correctly articulated the

8

scope of the prior settlement agreement and correctly concluded that the only allegation not

9

covered by that settlement agreement nonetheless fails to state a claim. In addition, the court

10

agrees that further leave to amend is not warranted; the deliberate indifference standards were

11

explained to plaintiff in the screening order (Doc. No. 14), but plaintiff’s amended complaint

12

again failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference with respect to the treatment of his cysts.

13
14
15

Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 1, 2021, (Doc. No. 52), are
adopted in full;

16

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 28), is granted; and

17

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action for purposes of

18
19

closing this case and to then close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
Dated:
21

September 21, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2