Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnson v. Cox

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 4, 2008

BYRON EUGENE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
R. COX, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

On August 6, 2008, the magistrate judge filed amended findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations on the grounds that the magistrate judge failed to address his lack of medical care claim. He argues that in addition to the delay in receiving medical care from a specialist, he was denied adequate pain medication from his treating physician as well as the supervisory physicians who were made aware of his position through his 602 inmate appeal. To the extent plaintiff objects to the magistrate's findings and recommendations on the basis of a denial of medical care claim, that claim is not cognizable. Mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not give rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Plaintiff received treatment for his pain, and his allegation that it was insufficient raises no more than a negligence in treatment claim, which is not cognizable under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff fails to show how any of the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need or acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of inflicting harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 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 by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The amended findings and recommendations filed August 6, 2008, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication (Doc. 28) is granted;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.

20080904

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.