Opinion
1:19-cv-00045-DAD-SAB (PC)
09-29-2021
JUAN R. VAZQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. E. CONANNAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 46, 59)
Plaintiff Juan R. Vasquez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 16, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 59.) The magistrate judge found that in light of the undisputed evidence before the court on summary judgment, plaintiff had failed to establish deliberate indifference necessary to support his Eighth Amendment claims against all defendants and failed to show any dispute of material facts. (Id. at 22, 25, 29, 31, 33.) The findings and recommendation were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within twenty-one days. (Id. at 33-34.)
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 60.) In his objections, plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge failed to consider video evidence that refutes defendant's contention that he had been jumping rope on his injured foot for over a minute. (Doc. No. 60 at 1.) Plaintiff asserts he had previously submitted the video evidence with his opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment but that it was never received by the court. (Id.) In that three and a half minute video, allegedly recorded in December 2020, plaintiff jumps rope several times for periods never exceeding 30 seconds. (See Doc. No. 61.) Even considering this video evidence, the undisputed evidence before the court establishes that defendants believed in good faith that plaintiff had been observed jumping rope and made their medical decisions with respect to his care in good faith. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the moving defendants is appropriate.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 16, 2021 (Doc. No. 59) are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 46) is granted; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.