Horowitz

(PC) Tenore v. Horowitz

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 8, 20212:17-cv-01802California3,346 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Michael Tenore, No. 2:17-cv-1802-KJM-KJN P Plaintiff, ORDER Vv. E. Horowitz, et al., Defendants. 16 Michael Tenore, an inmate in Mule Creek State Prison, alleges two doctors on the prison medical staff, Drs. Horowitz and Smith, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs 19 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The doctors moved for summary judgment. The motion 20 was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge under this District’s Local Rules and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and the Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion in part. See F&Rs, ECF No. 68. The doctors objected to the findings and recommendations; Mr. Tenore did not. See ECF As discussed below, the court adopts in part the findings and recommendations 24 and grants the motion for summary judgment in part. No party objects to the Magistrate Judge’s summary of Mr. Tenore’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.