(PC) Randolph v. Lozovoy et al, No. 1:2016cv01528 - Document 57 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 56 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 49 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/23/19. Matter Referred Back to Magistrate Judge. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLIN M. RANDOLPH, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:16-cv-01528-DAD-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. R. LOZOVOY, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 49, 56) 17 18 Plaintiff Colin M. Randolph is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 In his first amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants Chen, Grewal, and 22 Lozovoy engaged in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eight 23 Amendment against. (Doc. No. 11.) On January 15, 2019, defendants filed a motion for 24 summary judgment, arguing that “(1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with 25 respect to Defendants Grewal and Chen, because the only appeal he filed concerning the issues 26 raised in the complaint was filed before he saw them; (2) each Defendant provided proper 27 medical care to Plaintiff at the time of treating him; and (3) Defendants are entitled to qualified 28 1 1 immunity because they acted reasonably in providing medical care to Plaintiff.” (Doc. No. 49-1 2 at 6.) 3 Plaintiff filed his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment on February 4, 4 2019. (Doc. No. 51.) Although plaintiff conceded therein that he failed to exhaust administrative 5 remedies as to defendants Chen and Grewal, he argued that the court should not grant summary 6 judgment in favor of defendant Lozovoy. (Id. at 1–2.) Defendants filed their reply on February 7 15, 2019. (Doc. No. 54.) 8 9 On August 29, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to his 10 claims against defendants Chen and Grewal. (Doc. No. 56 at 14.) However, the magistrate judge 11 recommended summary judgment be denied as to defendant Lozovoy, concluding that there was 12 “a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether defendant Lozovoy was deliberately 13 indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, and that defendant Lozovoy is not entitled to 14 qualified immunity.” (Id. at 13.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 15 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 16 service. (Id. at 14.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed. 17 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 18 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 19 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 20 Accordingly: 21 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 29, 2019, (Doc. No. 56), are 22 23 24 25 adopted in full; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 49), is granted in part and denied in part; a. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants Chen and Grewal due to 26 plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as 27 required with respect to his claims against those defendants; 28 b. Summary judgment is denied as to defendant Lozovoy; and 2 1 3. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent 2 3 4 with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 23, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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
]]>
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.
