Armstrong v. Hedgpeth, et al.

Filing 58

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57 ; ORDER for This Action to Proceed Only Against Defendant Nurse Rumsey on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Medical Claim; ORDER DISMISSING All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/22/14: The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of Defendants Dileo, Spaeth, Terronez, and Gomez from this action on the Court's docket; and This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings including initiation of service of process. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

1:11-cv-00761-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 57.)

vs.

ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST
DEFENDANT NURSE RUMSEY ON
PLAINTIFF=S EIGHTH AMENDMENT
MEDICAL CLAIM

A. HEDGPETH, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11
12

ORDER DISMISSING ALL OTHER
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

13
14

Brady Armstrong (APlaintiff@) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

15

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s First

16

Amended Complaint filed on November 20, 2013. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a

17

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

18

On July 9, 2014, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending that

19

this action proceed only against defendant Nurse Rumsey for failure to provide adequate

20

medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be

21

dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 57.) Plaintiff was

22

provided an opportunity to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations within thirty

23

days.

24

Recommendations.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the Findings and

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

26

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

27

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

28

analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

2

1.

3
4

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on July 9,
2014, are ADOPTED in full;

2.

This action now proceeds with Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed on

5

November 20, 2013, against defendant Nurse Rumsey on Plaintiff=s Eighth

6

Amendment medical claim;

7

3.

All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;

8

4.

Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation, excessive force, and state tort claims are
DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon

9
10
11

which relief may be granted;
5.

Defendants Dr. L. Dileo, Dr. Spaeth, MTA (Medical Technical Assistant)

12

Terronez, Nurse Gomez, Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, and John Doe #1 are

13

DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims

14

upon which relief may be granted against them;

15

6.

16
17

The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendants Dileo, Spaeth,
Terronez, and Gomez from this action on the Court's docket; and

7.

18

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,
including initiation of service of process.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

August 22, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2