(PC) Lopez v. Florez et al, No. 1:2008cv01975 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/27/12: This action is to proceed on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims as to Defendants Veronica, Reed and Florez for their deliberate indifference in denying pain medication to Plaintiff following his off-site surgery and related state law claims of malpractice and violations of the California Constitution. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Lopez v. Florez et al Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW R. LOPEZ, 12 13 Case No. 1:08-cv-01975- LJO JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. (Doc. 28) 14 15 16 FLOREZ, et al., Defendants. / 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 23, 2011, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened 19 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and issued a findings and 20 recommendations which found that while Plaintiff had stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for 21 deliberate indifference to his medical needs against Defendants Veronica, Reed, and Florez, Plaintiff’s 22 remaining allegations failed to state a cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Doc. 28.) 23 Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Eighth 24 Amendment claim against Defendants Veronica, Reed, and Florez. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge 25 advised that any parties intending to file objections must file the objections within twenty one days 26 following service of the findings and recommendations. (Id.) On January 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed 27 objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 30.) 28 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302, the Court has conducted a de novo 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court 2 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. 5 The findings and recommendations issued December 23, 2011, (Doc. 28), are adopted in full; and 6 2. Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference against Defendants Adams, Cate, Clark I, 7 Clark II, Florez, Jackson, Jones, Kelso, Lopez, Macalvaine, McGuinness, Neubarth, 8 Reed, Romero, Sillen, Thomas, Woodford, and Doe #’s 1 through 4, are DISMISSED 9 with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and 10 3. 11 Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims alleging retaliation as to Defendants Reed and Florez are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and 12 4. This action is to proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims as to Defendants 13 Veronica, Reed, and Florez for their deliberate indifference in denying pain medication 14 to Plaintiff following his off-site surgery and related state law claims of malpractice and 15 violations of the California Constitution. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: b9ed48 January 27, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
