(PC) Shavers v. Taber

Opinion

JESSE LEE SHAVERS, JR., No. 2:21-cv-01734-DAD-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING TABER, et al., DEFENDANT TABER’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 38, 45) Plaintiff Jesse Lee Shavers, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 March 11, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendant Taber’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. No. 38) be denied. (Doc. No. 45.) Specifically, the magistrate judge determined that plaintiff had stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference by alleging that: (1) he had an objectively serious medical condition based on his mobility issues and his substantial chronic pain; and (2) defendant Taber purposefully took away plaintiff’s mobility devices without conducting an evaluation and refusing to return those devices despite plaintiff’s complaints and defendant Taber’s observations of his pain. (Id. at 5); see Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that, to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment violation under a deliberate indifference theory against a prison official, a plaintiff must allege facts to (1) “demonstrate the existence of a serious medical need” and (2) that the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety”). The findings and recommendations were served upon the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Doc. No. 45 at 5-6.) To date, no party has filed objections and the time in which to do so has passed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 11, 2025 (Doc. No. 45) are adopted in full; 2. Defendant Taber’s motion to dismiss plaintiff's fourth amended complaint (Doc. No. 38) is denied; 3. Defendant Taber shall file an answer responding to the claims in plaintiffs fourth amended complaint no later than twenty-one (21) days after the date of entry of this order; and 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. *" | Dated: _May 2, 2025 Dal A. 2, axel UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE