(PC) Lopez v. Florez et al, No. 1:2008cv01975 - Document 196 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 191 Findings and Recommendations DENYING Defendants' 148 Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTING Plaintiff's 127 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/20/2013. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW R. LOPEZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 FLOREZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 1:08-cv-01975 LJO JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 127, 148, 191) 16 17 18 Plaintiff, Andrew R. Lopez, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Reed and 20 Flores provided him with inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 21 committed medical malpractice when they delayed in distributing his post-operative pain 22 medication. (See ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff and Defendants filed cross-motions for summary 23 24 25 26 27 28 judgment. (ECF Nos. 127, 148.) On October 21, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations to deny Defendants' motion and to grant Plaintiff's. (ECF No. 191.) This was served on both parties and contained notice that objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) Defendants filed objections on November 4, 2013 to which Plaintiff responded on November 14, 2013. (ECF Nos. 194, 195.) 1 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this 2 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 3 Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. are adopted in full; 6 7 2. 3. 4. 14 15 Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief in his motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and 12 13 Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed on April 4, 2013 (ECF No. 148), is DENIED; 10 11 Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, filed on February 22, 2013 (ECF No. 127), is GRANTED; 8 9 The Findings and Recommendations, filed on October 21, 2013 (ECF No. 191), 5. The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including a possible settlement conference and to set for trial on damages. IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill November 20, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.