(PC) Hamilton v. Son ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID HAMILTON, No. 2:19-cv-02210-DAD-AC (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 M. SON, (Doc. Nos. 33, 42) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff David Hamilton is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 29, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 33) be granted. (Doc. 22 No. 42.) Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended that defendant should be granted 23 summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s claim that defendant Son exhibited deliberate 24 indifference to his serious medical needs by discontinuing his pain medication without 25 prescribing a substitute medication. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on all 26 parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) 27 days of service. (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and 28 ///// 1 recommendations. (Doc. No. 43.) Thereafter, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s objections. 2 (Doc. No. 44.) 3 Plaintiff’s objections are somewhat wide-ranging and difficult to decipher. In part, 4 plaintiff objects to the recommendation that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be 5 granted, contending that he should have been provided notice of the deficiencies in his complaint 6 and granted leave to amend to cure those deficiencies. (Doc. No. 43 at 1, 3.) This objection has 7 no merit because it is based upon a lack of appreciation of the differences between a motion to 8 dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. When the non-moving party bears the burden of 9 proof at trial, “the moving party need only prove that there is an absence of evidence to support 10 the non-moving party’s case.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) 11 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). 12 Indeed, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, summary judgment should be entered 13 against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element 14 essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See 15 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the 16 nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. at 322–23. In such a 17 circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, “so long as whatever is before the district 18 court demonstrates that the standard for the entry of summary judgment . . . is satisfied.” Id. at 19 323. Such is the case here. 20 Next, plaintiff appears to object at some length to the findings and recommendations on 21 the grounds that defendant Son was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need for opioid 22 addiction treatment. (Doc. No. 43 at 2) (“Defendant Son knew and disregarded the potential 23 excessive risk of withdrawal.”). However, as the findings and recommendations point out, 24 plaintiff’s only claim as presented in the operative complaint is for constitutionally deficient 25 medical care based upon defendant’s alleged failure to treat plaintiff’s chronic pain and to provide 26 him substitute pain medication after discontinuing the Tylenol with codeine prescription he had 27 been receiving. (Doc. No. 42 at 9.) As the magistrate judge correctly found, plaintiff cannot 28 ///// 1 | assert a new and different medical care claim at this late stage of the litigation in response to 2 | defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 3 Plaintiff also argues that the April 16, 2021 screening order concluding that he had stated 4 | acognizable Eighth Amendment claim against the defendant is somehow inconsistent, or in 5 | conflict with, the pending findings and recommendations recommending that defendant be 6 | granted summary judgment as to that claim. (Doc. No. 43 at 3) (referring to the 2021 order and 7 | the pending findings and recommendations as a “split finding”). Again, plaintiff's objection in 8 | this regard reflects a misapprehension of the role of summary judgment in civil litigation. The 9 | remainder of plaintiffs objections are vague, conclusory, and unpersuasive. In short, none of 10 | plaintiff's objections call into question the analysis set forth in the findings and recommendation 11 | or provide any basis for their rejection. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 13 || court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 14 | including plaintiffs objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 15 | by the record and proper analysis. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 29, 2023 (Doc. No. 42) are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 33) is granted; and 20 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant and 21 close this case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ July 28, 2023 Da A. 2, el 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28