Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Francis
Defendant
Negre
Defendant
Etuate Sekona
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ETUATE SEKONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. FRANCIS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00529-DAD-HBK (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANT NEGRE’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 33, 37)

Plaintiff Etuate Sekona is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action brought under 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 October 14, 2020, defendant nurse Negre filed a motion for summary judgment on the 

grounds that the undisputed facts established he was not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s 

serious medical needs. (Doc. No. 33.) On November 4, 2020, plaintiff filed an opposition to 

defendant’s motion and defendant filed a reply thereto on November 10, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 34, 

35.) On September 2, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that defendant Negre’s motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 37.) 

Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the uncontested facts on summary judgment 

established that defendant has not been deliberately indifferent to plaintiff following his urolift 

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 41 Filed 11/16/21 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

surgery to treat his enlarged prostate condition. (Id. at 11.) The findings and recommendations 

were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within 

fourteen (14) days of service thereof. (Id.) After receiving an extension of time to do so, plaintiff 

filed timely objections on October 25, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 39, 40.) 

In his objections, plaintiff largely repeats his allegations that he had a serious medical 

need, that defendant Negre withheld from him pain medication and prostate medication, and that 

defendant Negre refused to empty plaintiff’s catheter urine bag after the urolift surgery. (Doc. 

No. 40 at 2–5.) Plaintiff additionally alleged that defendant’s withholding of the painkillers 

contradicted medical orders from a doctor. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff attached several medical records 

documenting his medical treatment to his objections. (Id. at 7–17.) The court has reviewed all 

attached documents and finds plaintiff’s arguments unpersuasive. The magistrate judge found in 

the pending findings and recommendations that the undisputed facts established that plaintiff had 

a serious medical need. (Doc. No. 37 at 9.) However, as the magistrate judge also found, and as 

the medical records attached by defendant to his objections support, it is undisputed that within an 

hour of his request for painkillers, plaintiff was offered by nurse Negre but rejected Tylenol with 

codeine tablets which were crushed and floated in water as specified by the prescribing 

physician,. (Id. at 10–11; Doc. No. 40 at 11.) The medical records also establish that urine was 

removed from plaintiff’s catheter urine bag the day after his surgery and that medical staff “could 

not find an effective dose of any prostate medication that he was able to tolerate.” (Doc. No. 40 

at 10–11.) As the magistrate judge found, the evidence, presented by both plaintiff and defendant 

Negre on summary judgment, establishes no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

defendant Negre was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs. (Id. at 9-11.) Rather 

the undisputed evidence on summary judgment establishes that defendant nurse Negre offered 

plaintiff the prescribed pain medication on more than one occasion and plaintiff refused it and 

also establishes that plaintiff’s urine bag was emptied as necessary by medical staff and was never 

full and bloody. (Id.) Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations, unsupported by evidence, are 

insufficient to raise a disputed issue of material fact in this regard and the granting of summary 

judgment in favor of defendant nurse Negre is therefore appropriate.

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 41 Filed 11/16/21 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

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 plaintiff’s 

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 September 2, 2021 (Doc. No. 37) are 

adopted in full;

2. Defendant Negre’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 33) is granted;

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Negre; and

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings as to the remaining defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2021 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 41 Filed 11/16/21 Page 3 of 3