Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00817/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00817-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL JORGENSON, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00817-LJO-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF NOS. 75 & 101)

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM 

THIS ACTION

Paul Jorgenson (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this action. 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 (“the Doe Defendants”), 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). 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 April 25, 2019, defendant United States filed a motion for summary judgment, or in 

the alternative, judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 75). Plaintiff had twenty-one days after

service of the motion to file and serve an opposition or a statement of no opposition. Local 

Case 1:17-cv-00817-DAD-EPG Document 105 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rule 230(l). Plaintiff did not file an opposition or a statement of no opposition. On September 

10, 2019, the Court gave Plaintiff an additional thirty days to file a response to defendant 

United States’ motion. (ECF No. 90, p. 2). The extended deadline for Plaintiff to respond 

passed, and Plaintiff did not file an opposition or a statement of no opposition. 

On December 10, 2019, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 

recommendations, recommending that “Defendant United States’ motion for judgment on the 

pleadings be GRANTED,” and that “Defendant United States be dismissed from this action 

with prejudice because of Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and because of Plaintiff’s failure to 

follow this Court’s local rules.” (ECF No. 101, p. 10).

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations. Plaintiff filed at least some of his objections on January 6, 2020. (ECF No. 

102).1

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 December 10, 

2019, are ADOPTED in full;

2. Defendant United States’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED;

3. Defendant United States is dismissed from this action with prejudice because of 

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and because of Plaintiff’s failure to follow this 

Court’s local rules; and

///

///

 

1 Plaintiff did not file objections to the findings and recommendations, but he did include at least some of 

his objections in his motion for extension of time to file objections. (ECF No. 102). Plaintiff’s motion for 

extension of time was granted (ECF No. 103), but the deadline for Plaintiff to file his objections has passed and he

has not filed objections.

Case 1:17-cv-00817-DAD-EPG Document 105 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendant United States on 

the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00817-DAD-EPG Document 105 Filed 01/28/20 Page 3 of 3