Summary
analyzing specific incidents of failure to treat chronic back pain separately
Summary of this case from Rogers v. PaulsonOpinion
2:11-CV-01449-PK
08-05-2014
SCOT ALAN REUTHER, Plaintiff, v. DR. MARVIN D. FICKLE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#187) on June 10, 2014, in which he recommends the Court grant Defendants' Motion (#159) for Summary Judgment and dismiss this matter with prejudice. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#187) and, therefore, GRANTS Defendants' Motion (#159) for Summary Judgment and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 5th day of August, 2014.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge