Lavery v. Dhillon

Filing 264

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/25/24 ADOPTING 260 Findings and Recommendations in full and GRANTING 247 Motion for Summary Judgment. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOSEPH LAVERY,

11

No. 2:13-cv-02083-DAD-AC (PC)

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

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

B. DHILLON,

14

Defendant.
(Doc. Nos. 247, 260)

15

Plaintiff Joseph Lavery is a state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights action under 42

16
17

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

18

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 25, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

19
20

recommending that defendant Dr. Dhillon’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 247) be

21

granted.1 (Doc. No. 260.) Specifically, based upon the evidence submitted by the parties, the

22

magistrate judge concluded that defendant Dr. Dhillon was entitled to summary judgment in his

23

favor on the merits as to plaintiff’s claim that defendant had failed to provide plaintiff with

24

constitutionally adequate medical care. (Id. at 10–14.)
Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that

25
26
27
28

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 15.) On
1

Defendant Dhillon is the sole remaining defendant in this action, the other named defendants
having previously been terminated.
1

1

November 9, 2023, plaintiff filed an objection to the pending findings and recommendations on

2

his own behalf.2 (Doc. No. 261.) In that objection plaintiff states merely:

3

Plaintiff has suffer (sic) for over a decade from the injuries caused
by Dr. Dhillon, who fail (sic) Plaintiff as for his medical needs. This
finding is a gross Miscarriage of Justice, in the Spirit of the Law.

4
5

(Id. at 1.) This objection provides no basis upon which to question the thorough analysis of the

6

evidence submitted on summary judgment and the applicable law as set forth in the pending

7

findings and recommendations.

8

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

9

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

10

including plaintiff’s objection, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are

11

supported by the record and proper analysis.

12

Accordingly:

13

1.

14

The findings and recommendations issued on October 25, 2023 (Doc. No. 260) are
adopted in full;

15

2.

16

Defendant Dhillon’s motion for summary judgment in his favor (Doc. No. 247) is
granted; and

17

3.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

January 25, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

As the findings and recommendations note, plaintiff has been represented by counsel at times
in this case. Counsel first appeared on his behalf on November 1, 2016 (Doc. No. 117) but was
granted leave to withdraw on June 6, 2018. (Doc. No. 168.) On July 12, 2018, the court
appointed counsel for the limited purpose of completing the significantly delayed discovery phase
of this action. (Doc. No. 172.) Finally, different pro bono counsel was appointed for the limited
purpose of filing an opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion. (Doc. No. 248.) Ny
its terms, that latest appointment expired and the court has considered plaintiff’s objection to the
pending findings and recommendations which he properly filed on his own behalf.
2