-JLT (PC) Lowe v. McGuinness et al, No. 1:2009cv00712 - Document 69 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 65 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 28 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/29/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
-JLT (PC) Lowe v. McGuinness et al Doc. 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRELL LOWE, 12 13 14 15 16 Case No. 1:09-cv-00712 AWI JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILLIAM J. MCGUINNESS, et al., Defendants. (Documents #28 & #65) / 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. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 25, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending 21 that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. 65.) The Magistrate Judge explained 22 that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden on summary judgment of conclusively proving that Defendant 23 McGuinness acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s need for back treatment. (Id. at 5-7.) In 24 regard to Defendant Call, the Magistrate Judge explained that there was sufficient evidence to create a 25 genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant Call ordered other nurses to disregard Plaintiff’s 26 need for medical attention. (Id. at 7-8.) Lastly, the Magistrate Judge explained that Plaintiff’s motion 27 for summary judgment against Defendant Rahimifar was procedurally premature because Defendant 28 Rahimifar has yet to file an answer in this case. (Id. at 8.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The findings and recommendations contained notice that the parties could file objections to the 2 findings and recommendations within fourteen days of being served. As of the date of this order, the 3 parties have not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1 4 The Court has conducted a de novo review of this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 5 636(b)(1)(C). Having carefully reviewed the entire file in this case, the Court finds the findings and 6 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued August 25, 2011 are ADOPTED in full; 9 2. Plaintiff’s February 3, 2011 motion for summary judgment (Doc. 28) is DENIED as 10 follows: 11 a. 12 Defendants McGuinnes and Call; and 13 b. 14 15 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to Defendant Rahimifar. IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: 0m8i78 September 29, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections. However, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request on September 16, 2011. (Doc. 68.) 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.