Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al

Filing 148

ORDER Adopting 137 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Defendant Garcia's 67 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 05/16/14. Dr. Garcia terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL STAFF at CSATF, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00749-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DEFENDANT GARCIA’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF Nos. 67, 137)

Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner, currently proceeding pro se,

18

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second

19

amended complaint, filed on August 21, 2012, for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in

20

violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants McGuiness, Wu, Nguyen, Garcia, Jimenez,

21

Jeffreys, Chief Medical Officer at CSATF, and Chief Pharmacist at CSATF.

22

On March 31, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

23

Defendant Garcia’s amended motion to dismiss, filed on August 2, 2013, be granted. The Findings

24

and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections must be

25

filed within thirty days after service. (ECF No. 137.) On May 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed his objections.

26

(ECF No. 147.) Defendant Garcia did not respond.

27
28

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant
Garcia is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff attempts to incorporate arguments regarding the
1

1

continuing violations doctrine previously submitted in his Motion for Reconsideration, which was

2

filed on December 23, 2013, and was related to a separate motion to dismiss. As acknowledged by

3

Plaintiff, this Court previously rejected application of the continuing violations doctrine. (ECF Nos.

4

96, 134.) The Court declines to further consider this argument.

5

Further, Plaintiff’s argument regarding the admissibility of time-barred evidence also is

6

unavailing. The Magistrate Judge’s findings regarding the statute of limitations applicable to any

7

claims against Defendant Garcia did not address the admissibility of evidence in this matter.

8
9

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de
novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections,

10

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

11

analysis as discussed.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

13

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 31, 2014, are ADOPTED in full;

14

2. Defendant Garcia’s amended motion to dismiss, filed on August 2, 2013, is GRANTED;
and

15
16
17
18
19

3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Garcia are DISMISSED from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

May 16, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2