Gundy v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, et al

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER GRANTING 15 and 27 Defendants' Motions for Partial Dismissal signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/1/2013. Defendant CDCR is dismissed from this action. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TAYLOR GUNDY,

CASE No.

11

13

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL
DISMISSAL BE GRANTED

Plaintiff,

12
v.

14
15
16
17
18

1:12-cv-01020-LJO-MJS (PC)

(ECF No. 34)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et CASE TO REMAIN OPEN
al.,
Defendants.
/

19
20
21

Plaintiff Taylor Gundy, a former state prisoner, initiated this action on June 21,

22 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred
23

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

24
302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
25
26
27
-1-

1
2
3

On February 11, 2013, Findings and Recommendations were filed in which the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion for partial dismissal brought by
Defendants CDCR and Lopez (ECF No. 15) and the motion for partial dismissal brought

4
5
6

by Defendants Arambula and Horton (ECF No.27) be granted such that Defendant
CDCR be dismissed from this action and the state law claims asserted against

7 Defendants Lopez, Arambula and Horton in the First Amended Complaint be dismissed
8 without prejudice. (F & R Granting Defendants’ Motions for Partial Dismissal, ECF No.
9 34.)
10

The parties were notified that objection, if any, was due within fourteen days after

11
12
13

service. No party filed an objection to the Findings and Recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has

14 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
15 Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by
16 proper analysis.
17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18
1.

The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed February 11,

19
2013, in full;

20
21

2.

The motion for partial dismissal brought by Defendants CDCR and Lopez

22

(ECF No. 15) and the motion for partial dismissal brought by Defendants

23

Arambula and Horton (ECF No.27) ARE GRANTED such that Defendant

24

CDCR is DISMISSED from this action and the state law claims asserted

25
against Defendants Lopez, Arambula and Horton in the First Amended
26
27

Complaint ARE DISMISSED without prejudice;
-2-

1
2

3.

3

Plaintiff may proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants
Lopez, Horton, Arambula, Paik and DOES 1-50, against Defendants Paik

4

and Pacific Orthopedic on his state law medical malpractice claim, and

5
against Defendants Paik and DOES 1-50 on his state law failure to

6

summon medical care claim; and

7
4.

8

The Clerk is directed this case shall remain open.

9
10
11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 Dated:
16

March 1, 2013

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
B9ed48
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-3-