Franklin v. Foulk

Filing 95

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/21/2017 ADOPTING IN FULL 94 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART 71 Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING 71 Motion for Summary Judgment concerning the claims aga inst Defendants Lee, Rohlfing, and Swingle; GRANTING 71 Motion for Summary Judgment concerning the claims against Defendants Kelsey and Ray; DISMISSING the claims against Defendants Kelsey and Ray for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHNNY L FRANKLIN, JR,

12

No. 2:14-cv-00057 KJM DB

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

F. FOULK, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief

17
18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging each defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious

19

medical needs while he was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (HDSP). The matter was

20

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

21

302.

22

On March 1, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were

23

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings

24

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 94.) Neither party has

25

filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

26

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

27

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

28

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having
1

1

reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record

2

and by the proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

The findings and recommendations filed March 1, 2017 (ECF No. 94) are adopted

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

in full;

remedies is granted in part and denied in part;
3.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment concerning the claims against

defendants Lee, Rohlfing, and Swingle is denied;
4.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment concerning the claims against

defendants Kelsey and Ray is granted; and
5.

The claims against defendants’ Kelsey and Ray for deliberate indifference to

13

serious medical needs are dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

14

DATED: March 21, 2017

15
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2