Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jorgenson v. United States, 1:17-cv-00817-LJO-EPG (PC). (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20191105917 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 02, 2019
Summary: AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF Nos. 46 & 93) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Paul Jorgenson ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. 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 now proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which was filed on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 19). This case is proceeding on Plai
More

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF Nos. 46 & 93)

Paul Jorgenson ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. 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 now proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which was filed on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 19). This case is proceeding on Plaintiff's FTCA claim against the United States, his Eighth Amendment Bivens claim against the four unknown correctional officers, his state tort claims for medical negligence against Defendants Haak, Randhawa, and Emanuel Medical Center, and his state tort claims for battery against Defendants Haak and Emanuel Medical Center. (ECF No. 21, p. 2; ECF No. 95, p. 3).

On January 17, 2019, defendant Haak filed a partial motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 46). On February 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition to defendant Haak's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 57). Defendant Haak filed his reply on February 12, 2019. (ECF No. 59).

On September 24, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, recommending that defendant Haak's partial motion to dismiss be denied. (ECF No. 93, p. 9).

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed and no objections have been filed.

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, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September 24, 2019, are ADOPTED in full; and 2. Defendant Haak's partial motion to dismiss is DENIED (the Court will address the portion of the motion to dismiss that was converted to a motion for summary judgment in a separate order).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer