Opinion
1:16-01066-NE-GSA-PC
07-15-2021
MICHAEL SCOTT McRAE, Plaintiff, v. BAIRAMIAN DIKRAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING DEFENDANT BETZ'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO BIVENS CLAIMS, AND DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT BETZ AS TO THE BIVENS CLAIM
(DOC. NOS. 81, 105.)
ORDER
Michael Scott McRae (“Plaintiff”) is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 3, 2021, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that defendant Dr. Betz's motion for summary judgment, filed on October 27, 2020, be granted. (Doc. No. 105.) The parties were granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day deadline has now expired, 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, 1. The findings and recommendations entered on May 3, 2021, are adopted in full;
2. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Dr. Betz on October 27, 2020, is granted as to plaintiff s Bivens claims under the Eighth Amendment;
3. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff s state law claims against defendant Dr. Betz;
4. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendant Dr. Betz as to plaintiffs Bivens claim brought against him;
5. This case now proceeds only against defendants David Bairamian and Kevin Cuong Nguyen on plaintiffs Bivens claims for inadequate medical care and state law claims for medical malpractice and medical battery;
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect defendant Dr. Betz's dismissal from this case on the court's docket; and
7. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.