(PC) Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE, No. 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DR. MCGUINESS, DR. WU, and RN DEFENDANTS WU AND JIMENEZ’S JIMENEZ, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. (Doc. No. 288) 18 Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint against defendants Wu, Jimenez, and McGuinness for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

24 On February 5, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the defendants motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendants ///// ///// ///// Wu and Jimenez (Doc. No. 284) be granted.1 (Doc. No. 288.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the undisputed evidence before the court on summary judgment established that: (1) defendant Wu did not act with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs when he reduced the strength of plaintiff’s glaucoma medication dosage; and (2) defendant Jimenez did not have the authority to refill prescriptions and thus could not have been deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in the manner plaintiff claims. (Id. at 9–13.) The findings and recommendations contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 15.) Following the granting of an extension of time to do so, plaintiff filed objections on February 20, 2020. (Doc. No. 292.)

10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

14 Similar to plaintiff’s position as stated in his opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment (see Doc. No. 285), in his objections plaintiff contends that the undisputed facts the magistrate judge relied on are not undisputed because they have not been decided by a jury. (See Doc. No. 292 at 1–5.) As the findings and recommendations correctly point out, however, “[a] motion for summary judgment ‘pierces’ the pleadings and puts the opponent to the test of affirmatively coming forward with sufficient evidence for its claims or defenses to create a genuine issue for trial.” (Doc. No. 288) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). Neither plaintiff’s objections to the pending findings and recommendations nor his opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment puts forth any evidence establishing a disputed issue of material fact or creating a genuine issue for trial. Moreover, the objections do not otherwise dispute the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.

25 ///// Defendant McGuiness has filed a separate motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 277) which the magistrate judge has addressed in separate findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 291).

The objection period with respect to the findings and recommendations addressing defendant McGuiness’ motion for summary judgment has not yet expired. (See id.) 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 288) are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendants Wu and Jimenez 5 (Doc. No. 284) is granted; 6 3. Judgment shall be entered in favor of defendants Wu and Jimenez and against 7 plaintiff; and 8 4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings 9 consistent with this order.

10 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a Dated: _ February 26, 2020 Ll A 5 Aan 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE