Petosyan v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/22/2012 adopting 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting in part and denying in part 27 Motion to Dismiss. (Defendants Response to amended complaint due by 4/26/2012).(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ARTHUR PETROSYAN,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00593-AWI-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS, AND REQUIRING DEFENDANTS
TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS

v.

13
HEDGPETH, et al.,
14
15

Defendants.

16
17

(ECF No. 32)
/

18
19

ORDER

20

Plaintiff Arthur Petrosyan (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

21

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 2, 2009. (ECF

22

No. 1.) This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on June 15,

23

2009. (ECF No. 10.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 12, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation

27
1

1

recommending that Defendants Zamora, Ali, Grannis, and Youssef’s Motion to Dismiss for

2

failure to state a claim be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF Nos. 27 & 32.) No

3

objections were filed.

4
5

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

6

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

7

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record

8

and by proper analysis. Thus, Defendants Zamora, Ali, Grannis, and Youssef’s Motion to

9

Dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted in part and denied in part.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11
12
13

1.

The Findings and Recommendation, filed August 12, 2011, is adopted in full;

2.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the claims based on Plaintiff not receiving

14

pain medication for four days (between December 22 and 26, 2008) is

15

GRANTED and the claims are dismissed with prejudice as to the defendants

16

named in the Amended Complaint;

17

3.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the remaining Eighth Amendment deliberate

18
indifference claims based on Plaintiff not receiving the recommended
19
treatment for his injury is DENIED; and

20
21

4.

22
23

Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint within
thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:
0m8i78

March 22, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
2