Smith v. Allison et al

Filing 139

ORDER Adopting Findings And Recommendations And Granting Defendant Byers' Motion To Dismiss And Disregarding Defendant Langler's Motion To Dismiss As Moot (Docs. 109 , 132 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/29/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
ALLISON, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-01814-LJO-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT BYERS' MOTION TO
DISMISS and DISREGARDING
DEFENDANT LANGLER'S MOTION TO
DISMISS AS MOOT
(Docs. 109, 132)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff, Lawrence Christopher Smith, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which he filed on October 1, 2010. The
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 302.
On March 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations to grant
Defendant Byers' motion to dismiss and that Defendant Langler's motion to dismiss should be
disregarded as moot since no claim for deliberate indifference was found cognizable against
Defendant Langler. (Doc. 132.) The Findings and Recommendations were served that same day
and contained provisions for the parties to file objections within thirty days. Despite lapse of more
than sufficient time, neither side has filed any objections to the Findings and Recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings
and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against

3

Defendant Byers is GRANTED without leave to amend and Defendant Byers is

4

DISMISSED with prejudice from this action; and

5

2. the Screening F&R (Doc. 42) is clarified to the extent that no claim for deliberate

6

indifference was found cognizable against Defendant Langler and Defendants’

7

motion to dismiss any deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Langler is

8

DISREGARDED as moot.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED
10 Dated: April 29, 2015
11

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2