Miller v. Adonis, et al.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHARLES A. MILLER,
M. ADONIS et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED
(Doc. Nos. 67)
Plaintiff Charles A. Miller is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 January 9, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations,
recommending that this action proceed: (1) against defendants Medina, Chudy, and Frederichs for
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2)
against defendant Medina under the Bane Act; and (3) against defendants Eddings and Walker for
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, as well as for violation of the Bane Act. (Doc.
No. 67.) The assigned magistrate judge further recommended that all other claims and defendants
be dismissed from this action. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on the
parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. (Id.) On
February 10, 2017, plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 68.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of the matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
objections, the court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and
1. The January 9, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 67) are adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on the following claims:
a. A claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, against
defendants Medina, Chudy, and Frederichs;
b. A claim under the Bane Act against defendant Medina; and
c. Claims for retaliation under the First Amendment and the Bane Act, against
defendants Eddings and Walker;
3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action. Specifically, all
of plaintiff’s other federal claims alleged in his third amended complaint are dismissed
with prejudice, and all other state claims are dismissed without prejudice but without
further leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 15, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?