-EFB (PC) Brownlee v. Porter et al, No. 2:2006cv02680 - Document 60 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/28/2011 ADOPTING 56 Findings and Recommendations, except as to lines 14-16 on page 4 and lines 11-12 on page 5. Pltf's 42 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-EFB (PC) Brownlee v. Porter et al Doc. 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TERRENCE BROWNLEE, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-06-2680 LKK EFB P vs. D.L. PORTER, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On August 9, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days from the 22 date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings 23 and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 25 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 2 proper analysis, except as to lines 14-16, on page 4 of the findings and recommendations; and 3 lines 11-12, on page 5 of the findings and recommendations. The court finds it necessary to 4 discuss the magistrate judge’s findings on those particular points in light of the Plaintiff’s filed 5 objections to the findings and recommendations. 6 In discussing Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 260(a), the magistrate 7 judge states, “Plaintiff has not enumerated each specific material fact relied on in support of his 8 motion, nor has he provided the specific citations to the evidence appended to his complaint 9 necessary for this court to rule on his motion.” Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 56, at 10 4 (Aug. 9, 2011). On August 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s 11 findings and recommendations wherein he enumerates each allegation he relies upon in support 12 of his motion for summary judgment and includes citations to particular exhibits appended to his 13 complaint, in support of those allegations. See Pl’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 14 and Recommendations, ECF No. 58 (Aug. 25, 2011). Plaintiff’s enumerated allegations include 15 the following: (1) “Had Defendant Timothy Friederichs not made order on 11-18-2005 that 16 Plaintiff no longer required medical hold, Plaintiff would have had his surgery,” id. at 1; and (2) 17 “Defendant Timothy Friederich’s actions caused Plaintiff to be delay [sic], denied, needed 18 medical care for a serious medical injury,” id. at 2. Because these statements set forth 19 conclusions, and not material facts relied upon in support of Plaintiff’s motion, the allegations do 20 not constitute a “Statement of Undisputed Facts” in satisfaction of Local Rule 260(a). 21 Furthermore, the magistrate judge correctly notes that “Plaintiff has provided no specific page 22 cites to the evidence within these lengthy exhibits which support his claims,” and that Plaintiff’s 23 original “statement of undisputed facts consists solely of plaintiff’s copy of his requests for 24 admission to defendant (without defendant’s answers), along with excerpts from plaintiff’s 25 medical records.” ECF No. 56, at 4. Thus, this court adopts the magistrate judge’s finding that 26 2 1 Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with Local Rule 260(a).1 2 On page 5 of the findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge states, 3 “plaintiff makes no argument or evidentiary showing that he was transferred, and his surgery was 4 delayed, due to defendant’s removal of the medical hold.” ECF No. 56, at 5. In Plaintiff’s 5 objection to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, Plaintiff refers to Exhibits 3 6 and 4, attached to his second amended complaint, in support of these assertions. Exhibit 3 7 includes a copy of a “Physician’s Order and Medication” which is dated “12-2-05” and states, in 8 part, “Lumbar Fusion Surgery.” See Pl’s Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 7, at 20 (June 6, 2007). 9 Exhibit 4 includes a statement, signed by “T.W. Friederichs, M.D.,” which is dated “12-09-05” 10 and states, “[T]he above named Inmate Patient [Brownlee] no longer requires a Medical Hold. 11 He can be transferred according [to] Custody need.” Id. at 22. On their face, these exhibits seem 12 to support Plaintiff’s assertion that he had been referred to surgery and that, four days later, 13 Defendant Friederich had removed Plaintiff’s medical hold. However, the magistrate judge 14 correctly notes that “Plaintiff has not cited to any specific document establishing the date his 15 surgery was allegedly scheduled thereby showing that his transfer prevented scheduled surgery 16 from occurring and delayed his receipt of that surgery.” ECF No. 56, at 5. After reviewing the 17 exhibits submitted in support of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, as well as the exhibits 18 submitted in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, this court has not found 19 evidence establishing that a surgery date was so scheduled. Thus, this court adopts the 20 magistrate judge’s finding that Plaintiff’s submissions fail to establish that there is no disputed 21 material fact regarding whether Defendant was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious 22 medical needs. 23 //// 24 1 25 26 This court notes, however, that because “pro se complaint[s] . . . must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292 (1976), Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 260(a) does not, alone, form the basis of this court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 3 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 9, 2011, are adopted, except 3 as to lines 14-16 on page 4 of the findings and recommendations; and lines 11-12 on page 5 of 4 the findings and recommendations; and 5 6 7 2. Plaintiff’s October 6, 2010 motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 42, is denied. So ordered. 8 9 DATED: September 28, 2011. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4
]]>
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.
