Carlson v. Hansen, et al.

Filing 77

ORDER ADOPTING 73 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 62 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss State Claim, Claims as Barred by Statute of Limitations and Requiring Defendants to File Answer within Twenty Days, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 08/03/2014. Case Management Deadline: 8/27/2014 (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

THOMAS JOHN CARLSON,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
R. HANSEN, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
STATE CLAIM CLAIMS AS BARRED BY
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND
REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE
ANSWER WITHIN TWENTY DAYS
(Docs. 62, 65, 66, and 73)

15
_____________________________________/
16
17

Plaintiff Thomas John Carlson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18 forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 30, 2010. This
19 action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed on November 6, 2013, against
20 Defendants Worth, Newton, Rodriquez, Vega, Monroy, Angulo, Madrid, O=Brien, Abraham,
21 Alvarado, Chan, Garza, Ikeni, McCave, and Villa (“Defendants”) for acting with deliberate
22 indifference to Plaintiff=s medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United
23 States Constitution. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims
24 for negligence and/or violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
25

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

26 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 8, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and
27 Recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that
28

1 Objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fifteen days. No
2 Objections were filed.
3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a

4 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings
5 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on July 8, 2014, is adopted in full;

8

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims as barred by the statute

9 of limitations, filed on January 15, 2014, is DENIED, without prejudice; and
10

3.

Defendants shall file an answer to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint within

11 twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order.
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

August 3, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2