(PC) Jorgenson v. United States of America, et al., No. 1:2017cv00817 - Document 96 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 93 Findings and Recommendations signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/30/2019. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PAUL JORGENSON, Case No. 1:17-cv-00817-LJO-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 13 14 v. (ECF Nos. 46 & 93) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. 15 16 Paul Jorgenson (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis in this action. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second 19 Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which was filed on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 19). This case is 20 proceeding “on Plaintiff’s FTCA claim against the United States, his Eighth Amendment 21 Bivens claim against the four unknown correctional officers, and his state tort claims for 22 medical negligence and battery against Defendants Haak, Randhawa, and Emanuel Medical 23 Center.” (ECF No. 21, p. 2). 24 On January 17, 2019, defendant Haak filed a partial motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 46). 25 On February 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition to defendant Haak’s motion to dismiss. 26 (ECF No. 57). Defendant Haak filed his reply on February 12, 2019. (ECF No. 59). 27 On September 24, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and 28 recommendations, recommending that defendant Haak’s partial motion to dismiss be denied. 1 1 (ECF No. 93, p. 9). 2 The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 3 recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed and no objections have been 4 filed. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 6 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 7 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 8 analysis. 9 10 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September 24, 11 2019, are ADOPTED in full; and 12 2. Defendant Haak’s partial motion to dismiss is DENIED (the Court will address the 13 portion of the motion to dismiss that was converted to a motion for summary 14 judgment in a separate order). 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ October 30, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF 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.