Miller v. Adonis, et al.

Filing 69

ORDER ADOPTING 67 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 05/15/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES A. MILLER, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:12-cv-00353-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. M. ADONIS et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 67) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Charles A. Miller is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On January 9, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, 23 recommending that this action proceed: (1) against defendants Medina, Chudy, and Frederichs for 24 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) 25 against defendant Medina under the Bane Act; and (3) against defendants Eddings and Walker for 26 retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, as well as for violation of the Bane Act. (Doc. 27 No. 67.) The assigned magistrate judge further recommended that all other claims and defendants 28 be dismissed from this action. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on the 1 1 parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. (Id.) On 2 February 10, 2017, plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 68.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 5 objections, the court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and 6 proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The January 9, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 67) are adopted in full; 9 2. This action shall proceed on the following claims: 10 a. A claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, against 11 defendants Medina, Chudy, and Frederichs; 12 b. A claim under the Bane Act against defendant Medina; and 13 c. Claims for retaliation under the First Amendment and the Bane Act, against 14 15 defendants Eddings and Walker; 3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action. Specifically, all 16 of plaintiff’s other federal claims alleged in his third amended complaint are dismissed 17 with prejudice, and all other state claims are dismissed without prejudice but without 18 further leave to amend. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 15, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?