(PC) Gordon v. Ikegbu
Filing
49
ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/5/2025 ADOPTING 41 Findings and Recommendations, GRANTING 29 Motion for Summary Judgment and DIRECTING the clerk to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk VLK)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
CHARLES RAY GORDON,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
v.
Case No. 2:21-cv-01898-DAD-JDP (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
NNENNA IKEGBU,
(Doc. Nos. 29, 41, 47)
Defendant.
15
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
17
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
18
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
19
On September 4, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
20
recommendations recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 29)
21
be granted. (Doc. No. 41.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that based upon the
22
evidence before the court on summary judgment defendant did not display deliberate indifference
23
to plaintiff’s serious medical need because she lacked the requisite culpable state of mind and that
24
even if her decision to deny a cortisone injection for plaintiff’s shoulder did somehow violate the
25
Eighth Amendment, she was entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 4–6.)
26
The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained
27
notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at
28
6–7.) After receiving two extensions of time in which to do so, on January 21, 2025, plaintiff
1
1
filed objection to the findings and recommendations along with a request for judicial notice.
2
(Doc. Nos. 46, 47.) On February 3, 2025, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s objections.
3
(Doc. No. 48.)
4
In his objections, plaintiff for the most part argues that defendant has engaged in a pattern
5
of deliberate indifference to the medical needs of prisoners. (Doc. No. 46 at 2–5.) Plaintiff also
6
appears to contend that there are disputed issues of material fact reflected in the evidence before
7
the court on summary judgment, but fails to specifically identify any such disputed issues of
8
material fact. (Id.) Thus, plaintiff’s objections fail to present any basis upon which to reject the
9
pending finding and recommendations.1
10
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
11
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
12
objections and defendant’s response thereto, the court concludes that the findings and
13
recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
14
Accordingly:
15
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 4, 2024 (Doc. No. 41), are
16
ADOPTED in full;
17
2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 29), is GRANTED and
18
judgment is entered in her favor; and
19
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
Dated:
23
24
25
26
27
28
March 5, 2025
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
1
Plaintiff asks that the court take judicial notice of many published court decisions involving
claims of deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners brought against
defendant who has served as the Chief Physician at the California Medical Facility (CMF). (Doc.
No. 47.) “The court need not take judicial notice of a published . . . court opinion[s], as it relies
on such authority routinely in deciding pending motions.” Armstead v. City of Los Angeles, 66 F.
Supp. 3d 1254, 1262 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (citing Jones v. Curry, No. 07-cv-01013-RMW-PR, 2008
WL 3550866, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2008)). Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for judicial
notice will be denied as unnecessary.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?