Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01784/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01784-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT KELLY WALTERS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1784 DFL JFM P

vs.

R. CASTRO, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 5, 2005, defendants Barkley, Baron, Castro, Gillett, Hlusak,

Hooper, Martin, O’Barr, Sandham, Srikureja and Wilson filed a renewed motion for summary

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. On December 6, 2005, plaintiff was ordered to file

within thirty days an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. In the

same order, plaintiff was informed that failure to file an opposition would result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

By order filed January 23, 2006, plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file

an opposition to the summary judgment motion. In that order, the court noted in a footnote that

plaintiff’s claims against numerous defendants (all of the original defendants except those

currently moving for summary judgment and Dr. Gordon Gilkes) had been resolved.

Case 2:02-cv-01784-DFL -JFM Document 286 Filed 03/20/06 Page 1 of 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

2

On February 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the summary

judgment motion of defendants Baron, Hlusak, Wilson and Barkley. On March 10, 2006,

plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the summary judgment motion of defendants

Castro, Martin, Gillette, Hooper, Sandham, and Srikujera. In view of plaintiff’s statements of

non-opposition thereto, and good cause appearing, the court will recommend that the motion of

said defendants’ for summary judgment be granted.

Plaintiff has not filed either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to

defendant O’Barr’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s complaint was that defendant

O’Barr violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to

plaintiff’s serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) ( inadequate

medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment cognizable under § 1983 unless

mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”)

Defendant O’Barr seeks summary judgment on the grounds that he provided

constitutionally adequate medical care to plaintiff or on his behalf on the two occasions on which

he was called to do so. In support of the motion, defendant O’Barr presents evidence that on

June 18, 1999, he received a telephone call requesting an order for a repeat MRI scan if the report

from a prior scan was lost or otherwise unavailable. On December 3, 1999, Dr. O’Barr saw

plaintiff for complaints about his right eye and wrote urgent orders to the nurse in charge of

specialty appointments. There is no evidence that on either of those occasions Dr. O’Barr was

deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs. For these reasons, the court will

recommend that defendant O’Barr’s motion for summary judgment be granted.

Finally, on March 10, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for voluntary dismissal of 

defendant Gordon Gilkes, the only defendant who will remain in this case if the

recommendations set forth above are adopted. None response to plaintiff’s request for voluntary

dismissal of Gordon Gilkes has been filed. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Good cause appearing, the

/////

Case 2:02-cv-01784-DFL -JFM Document 286 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 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

3

court will recommend that plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal of defendant Gilkes be

granted.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The October 5, 2005 motion for summary judgment of defendants Barkley,

Baron, Castro, Gillett, Hlusak, Hooper, Martin, O’Barr, Sandham, Srikureja and Wilson be

granted; 

2. Plaintiff’s March 10, 2006 request for voluntary dismissal of defendant Gordon

Gilkes be granted; and

3. This case be closed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: March 20, 2006. 

12

walt1784.57f

Case 2:02-cv-01784-DFL -JFM Document 286 Filed 03/20/06 Page 3 of 3