Jameson v. Rawers, et al., et al

Filing 83

ORDER ADOPTING 72 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS For Dismissal of Certain of Plaintiff's Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/2/2012. All Defendants Except For Defendants Perry and Rees Are DISMISSED From This Action. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BARRY S. JAMESON,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

1:03-cv-05593-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL OF
CERTAIN OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS

SCOTT RAWERS, et al.,
(ECF No. 72)

11

Defendants.

12
13

_______________________________/

14
15

Plaintiff Barry S. Jameson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights

16

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

17

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

18

On June 30, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation

19

recommending that certain of Plaintiff’s claims and defendants be dismissed. (ECF No. 72.)

20

Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

21

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule 305, this

22

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

23

Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

24

analysis.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
///

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendation, filed July 6, 2011, is adopted in full;

3

2.

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment “failure to protect” claim in Counts One and Two of
his Fifth Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice;

4
3.

5

Plaintiff’s Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims in Counts One and
Two of his Fifth Amended Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice;

6
4.

7

Counts Three, Four, Five and Six of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint are
DISMISSED without prejudice;

8
6.

9

All Defendants except for Defendants Perry and Rees are DISMISSED from this
action; and

10
7.

11

Plaintiff is permitted to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim, in Counts One

12

and Two of his Fifth Amended Complaint, that Defendants Rees and Perry acted

13

with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical care needs, but that all other

14

medical care claims in Counts One and Two the Fifth Amended Complaint be

15

dismissed as against all other Defendants.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:
b9ed48

February 2, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-