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)

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