(PC) Avila v. Felder

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ANDREW AVILA, No. 1:21-cv-01510 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. THE ACTION 14 FELDER, et al., (Doc. 15) 15 Defendants. 16 17 The assigned magistrate judge screened the First Amended Complaint and determined 18 Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 15.) 19 Although Plaintiff identified a serious medical need, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to 20 allege the defendant acted with deliberate indifference. (Id. at 3-5.) In addition, the magistrate 21 judge observed Plaintiff was unable to invoke liability under Section 1983 for any violations of 22 the identified prison regulations related to medical emergencies and responses thereto. (Id. at 5, 23 citing, e.g., Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009).) Finally, the magistrate 24 judge found Plaintiff failed to show injunctive relief and declaratory relief were appropriate. (Id. 25 at 6-7.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure 26 to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted on February 23, 2022. (Id. at 8.) 27 Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations on March 14, 2022. 28 (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff’s objections set forth the same disjointed allegations and legal conclusions as 1 | the First Amended Complaint, and do not address the determination that the allegations fail to 2 | show the prison’s physician acted with deliberate indifference in treating Plaintiff's eye pain and 3 | vision loss. Although Plaintiff contends the treatment was wrong, as the magistrate judge 4 | observed, disagreement with treatment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. See 5 | Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de 7 | novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file—including Plaintiff's 8 || objections—the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and 9 | by proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 23, 2022 (Doc. 15), are 11 ADOPTED in full. 12 2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim 13 upon which relief may be granted; and 14 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 15 17 | Dated: _March 22, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28