ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 49, 56)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff Colin M. Randolph is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 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.

In his first amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants Chen, Grewal, and Lozovoy engaged in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eight Amendment against. (Doc. No. 11.) On January 15, 2019, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that "(1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to Defendants Grewal and Chen, because the only appeal he filed concerning the issues raised in the complaint was filed before he saw them; (2) each Defendant provided proper medical care to Plaintiff at the time of treating him; and (3) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably in providing medical care to Plaintiff." (Doc. No. 49-1 at 6.)

Plaintiff filed his opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment on February 4, 2019. (Doc. No. 51.) Although plaintiff conceded therein that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to defendants Chen and Grewal, he argued that the court should not grant summary judgment in favor of defendant Lozovoy. (Id. at 1-2.) Defendants filed their reply on February 15, 2019. (Doc. No. 54.)

On August 29, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to his claims against defendants Chen and Grewal. (Doc. No. 56 at 14.) However, the magistrate judge recommended summary judgment be denied as to defendant Lozovoy, concluding that there was "a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether defendant Lozovoy was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs, and that defendant Lozovoy is not entitled to qualified immunity." (Id. at 13.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 14.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 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.

Accordingly:

IT IS SO ORDERED.