ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. No. 48, 36)

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

This case proceeds against defendants Drs. Patel and Le on plaintiff's claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment based upon the defendants' alleged denial of adequate treatment for plaintiff's back pain. (Doc. No. 9.) On November 16, 2016, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 36.) On August 3, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendants' motion be denied in its entirety. (Doc. No. 48.)

The parties were granted fourteen days to file their objections to the findings and recommendations. Defendants filed their objections on August 7, 2017. (Doc. No. 49.) Plaintiff did not respond to those objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Defendants object that there is no evidence before the court on summary judgment showing that Drs. Patel and Le were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's complaints of severe back pain. (Doc. No. 49 at 2.) Defendants also contend that plaintiff's arguments instead reflect a mere difference of opinion between a prisoner and a prison medical staff regarding the appropriate medical treatment, which does not give rise to a claim for deliberate indifference. (Id. at 4.) Defendants' objections reiterate arguments that were already considered and properly rejected by the magistrate judge. The court adopts the magistrate judge's findings that a disputed issue of material fact exists as to whether Dr. Patel was deliberately indifferent with respect to "plaintiff's complaints of severe back pain by refusing to review his medical records, refusing to prescribe a more powerful pain medication, refusing to continue beneficial physical therapy, and in effect jumping to the conclusion that there was `nothing wrong' with plaintiff." (Doc. No. 48 at 12.) Likewise, a disputed issue of material fact exists as to whether Dr. Le was also deliberately indifferent with respect to plaintiff's complaints of severe back pain by reporting that plaintiff had no difficulty walking, stating that there was no reason for him not to be able to raise his legs higher upon physical examination, refusing to refer plaintiff to a specialist, and refusing to look at plaintiff's medical records and x-ray. (Id. at 8-9, 12.) These conclusions were drawn after reviewing declarations and depositions, and evidence properly submitted on summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).

Accordingly, it his HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

IT IS SO ORDERED.