Opinion
No. 1:19-cv-01734-DAD-SAB (PC)
04-07-2020
JOSE GUADALUPE CALDERON, Plaintiff, v. MAGDY DANIALS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(Doc. No. 18)
Plaintiff Jose Guadalupe Calderon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action under 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 302.
On February 28, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical need. (Doc. No. 18.) Finding that plaintiff's second amended complaint ("SAC") was largely identical to, and contained the same deficiencies as his first two complaints, the magistrate judge recommended that the second amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. (Id. at 5.) Specifically, though plaintiff alleges in his SAC that defendants repeatedly misdiagnosed and treated him for gout, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff's allegations are "insufficient to suggest that any Defendant intentionally and with deliberate indifference prescribed gout medication despite knowing that Plaintiff did not have gout, or that any Defendant purposefully failed to address his medical needs." (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of service. (Id.) On March 10, 2020, plaintiff timely filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 21.)
In his objections, plaintiff does not address the analysis set forth in the pending findings and recommendations. Rather, plaintiff merely reiterates the allegations set forth in his SAC and asserts in conclusory fashion that defendants showed deliberate indifference by not trying to find another cause for his symptoms, by not allowing him to obtain a second medical opinion, and by continuing to prescribe him medication for gout. (Doc. No. 21 at 3-4.) The undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge's findings that these allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
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 concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 28, 2020 (Doc. No. 18) are adopted in full;IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
Dated: April 7 , 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE