Gomez v. Swaim

Filing 28

ORDER Adopting 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/21/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

FRED GOMEZ,

9
10
11

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01436-AWI-DLB PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

v.
SERGEANT SWAIM, et al.,

12

ECF No. 25

Defendants.

13

/

14
15

Plaintiff Fred Gomez (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

16

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended

17

Complaint. ECF No. 23. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

18

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On April 10, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was

20

served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and

21

Recommendations was to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff filed an Objection

22

to the Findings and Recommendations on [DATE]. ECF No. 27.

23

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

24

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

25

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 10, 2013, is adopted in full;

28

2.

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendants
1

1

Swaim, Becerra, Daveiga, and Junious for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s

2

conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment for placing Plaintiff

3

on management cell status for twenty-two days without adequate heating;

4

3.

5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff’s claim regarding denial of four meals over twenty-four hours is dismissed
with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and

4.

Defendants Does are dismissed from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
0m8i78

May 21, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2