Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING Defendant Jeffreys' Motion to Dismiss 218 , 262 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/13/2018: Defendant Jeffreys is dismissed from this action; This action shall proceed only a gainst defendants Wu, McGuiness, Enenmoh, and Jimenez for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.(Hellings, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,
No. 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC)
MEDICAL STAFF AT CSATF, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
DEFENDANT JEFFREYS’ MOTION TO
(Doc. Nos. 218, 262)
Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds
on plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint against defendants Wu, McGuiness, Enenmoh, Jeffreys,
and Jimenez for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the
On June 19, 2017, defendant Jeffreys filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim and to dismiss defendant Jeffreys from this action on
the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against defendant Jeffreys upon which relief
can be granted. (Doc. Nos. 218, 219.)
On January 31, 2018, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
recommending that defendant Jeffreys’ motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. No. 262.) The
findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any
objections thereto must be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 6.) More than fourteen
days have passed, and no objections have been filed.
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 and carefully reviewed the entire file. The court finds that the
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 31, 2018 (Doc. No. 262) are
adopted in full;
2. Defendant Jeffreys’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 218) is granted due to plaintiff’s
failure to state a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need
against defendant Jeffreys;
3. Defendant Jeffreys is dismissed from this action;
4. This action shall proceed only against defendants Wu, McGuiness, Enenmoh, and
Jimenez for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of
the Eighth Amendment; and
5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent
with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 13, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?