Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05922/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05922-1/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDOLPH ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05922-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 13)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff Randolph Allen (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action 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 72-302.

On March 16, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On

May 9, 2005, the court set a deadline of June 13, 2005 for

plaintiff to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings

Case 1:04-cv-05922-AWI-LJO Document 20 Filed 07/01/05 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

27

28

2

and Recommendations. On June 14, 2005, plaintiff filed

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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 by proper analysis. Petitioner’s

objections do not provide a basis to not adopt the Findings and

Recommendations. Although Plaintiff may have a difference of

opinion regarding when or how Defendants should have treated

Plaintiff’s injuries, this difference does not constitute an

Eighth Amendment violation. See Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240,

242 (9th Cir. 1989). A showing of medical malpractice or

negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional

deprivation under the Eighth Amendment. Toguchi v. Chung, 391

F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) The Magistrate Judge correctly

recommends dismissal because Plaintiff has alleged, at most, that

defendants engaged in medical malpractice or that they had a

different opinion about proper medical care for Plaintiff. See

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Jackson v. McIntosh,

90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 16, 2005,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s section 1983 claims are DISMISSED,

with prejudice, for failure to state any claims upon which relief

Case 1:04-cv-05922-AWI-LJO Document 20 Filed 07/01/05 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

27

28

3

may be granted; and,

b. Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED,

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05922-AWI-LJO Document 20 Filed 07/01/05 Page 3 of 3