Parthemore v. Toor

Full title: IRA D. PARTHEMORE, Plaintiff, v. KIRAN DEEP SINGH TOOR, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 27, 2015

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00307-AWI-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00307-AWI-MJS (PC)

04-27-2015

IRA D. PARTHEMORE, Plaintiff, v. KIRAN DEEP SINGH TOOR, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(ECF No. 24)

DISMISSAL COUNTS AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

CLERK TO TERMINATE ALL PENDING MOTIONS AND CLOSE CASE

Plaintiff 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 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On December 31, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a recommendation to dismiss the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff filed objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff contends that Defendants Toor and Malakkla were deliberately indifferent to his arthritis pain when they discontinued his prescription for Celebrex and provided him ineffective medication. However, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts suggesting deliberate indifference on the part of Defendant Toor in light of Toor's submission of a Nonformulary Drug Request for Celebrex on Plaintiff's behalf. As with his prior pleadings, Plaintiff fails to provide details regarding his appeals to Defendant Malakkla that would suggest Malakkla was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections do not raise an issue of fact or law under the findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendation, filed December 31, 2014 (ECF No. 24), in full;



2. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim and dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to the "three strikes" provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and



3. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 27, 2015

/s/_________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE