(PC) Rodriguez v. Pfeiffer ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, No. 1:21-cv-00572-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 13 v. THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, et al., TO AMEND 15 Defendants. (Docs. 29, 38) 16 17 Manuel Rodriguez seeks to hold the defendants liable for violating his rights arising under 18 the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff asserts the defendants delayed in providing adequate medical 19 treatment after he suffered a neck injury, which Plaintiff asserts resulted in an epidural abscess 20 that ultimately rendered him quadriplegic. (See generally Doc. 22.) 21 On December 7, 2021, Defendants Christian Pfeiffer and Michael Felder filed a motion 22 to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 29.) On 23 March 9, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations related to 24 the motion. (Doc. 38.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to 25 state a claim under the Eighth Amendment against Pfeiffer and Felder. (Id. at 8-9.) In addition, 26 the magistrate judge noted the Court previously informed Plaintiff of the applicable legal 27 standards and granted an opportunity to cure the pleading deficiencies. (Id. at 9.) Despite this, 28 the magistrate judge found Plaintiff “failed to fully cure the deficiencies his complaint.” (Id.) 1 | Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended “the claims against Defendants Pfeiffer and Felder 2 | be dismissed without further leave to amend.” (/d. at 9-10.) 3 The Court granted the parties 14 days to file any objections to the Findings and 4 | Recommendations. (Doc. 38 at 10.) In addition, the Court advised the parties “that failure to file 5 | objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing 6 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 7 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time to do so has passed. 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 9 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 10 | Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court 11 | ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated on March 9, 2022 (Doc. 38) are 13 ADOPTED in full. 14 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 29) is GRANTED. 15 3. The claim against Defendants Christian Pfeiffer and Michael Felder is 16 DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 17 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket and terminate Christian Pfeiffer 18 and Michael Felder as defendants. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _Aprill 4, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28