(PC) Hernandez v. Ogboehi ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARMANDO HERNANDEZ, No. 1:20-cv-01019-ADA-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 14 IFEOMA OGBUEHI, et al., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 50, 63) 16 17 Plaintiff Armando Hernandez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 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 2, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 63.) 22 Plaintiff filed objections on June 23, 2023, and Defendants responded on July 10, 2023. (ECF 23 Nos. 68, 69.) 24 In his objections, Plaintiff states that he has been unable to contact his primary care 25 physician to procure “further evidence or sworn affidavits regarding Plaintiff’s medical 26 conditions.” (ECF No. 68 at 1.) Even without such evidence, he claims that “continuation of the 27 same treatment in the face of obvious failure . . . despite numerous complaints over a period of 28 months and a visibly deteriorating condition” constituted deliberate indifference of a serious 1 | medical need. Ud. at 2.) As Defendants point out in their response, however, Plaintiff provides 2 | no legal authority for his arguments or identifies any flaws in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. 3 | (See ECF No. 69 at 2.) Plaintiff's objections amount to a conclusory rejection of the findings and 4 | recommendations. In fact, his statement that he was unable to acquire additional medical 5 | evidence and testimony implicitly acknowledges that the record as it stands supports the 6 | Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. Had Plaintiff believed that he needed more time to acquire 7 || necessary discovery or that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was premature, he should 8 | have filed a declaration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Plaintiff did not file 9 | such a declaration, and it would not be proper for the Court to consider such a request at this 10 | point. See Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross, 916 F.2d 516, 520 (9th Cir. 1990). 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C©), the Court has conducted a 12 || de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's 13 | objections, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 14 | and proper analysis. 15 Accordingly, 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 2, 2023, (ECF No. 63), are 17 adopted in full; 18 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 50), is granted; and 19 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants. 20 21 92 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: _ September 26, 2023 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28