Henderson v. Smith et al

Filing 36

ORDER Adopting 34 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER Directing Service of Process and Dismissing Claims, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/17/16. Morris (LVN), Gonsalez (LVN) and Matha (LVN) terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CURTIS LEE HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No.34)

v.
DR. SMITH, et al.,

ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF
PROCESS AND DISMISSING CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 12, 2016, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that
this action proceed on the August 24, 2015, second amended complaint against Defendants
Jackson and Smith, and that the remaining claims and Defendants be dismissed. Plaintiff was
provided an opportunity to file objections within thirty days. On February 25, 2016, Plaintiff
filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
Court finds the record to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

28

1

1

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

2

1.

12, 2016, are adopted in full;

3
4

The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on February

2.

This action proceeds on the August 24, 2015, second amended complaint against

5

Defendants Jackson and Smith for interference with Plaintiff’s prescribed

6

treatment and delay in medical care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

7

3.

state a claim against them ;

8
9

Defendants Gonsalez, Mata and Morris are dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to

4.

Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Smith for the ambulance crash, against Dr. Jackson

10

for the November 19, 2011, examination of Plaintiff, and against Dr. Smith for

11

the December 7, 2011, surgery are dismissed for failure to state a claim; and

12

5.

This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for service of process of the
August 24, 2015, second amended complaint on Defendants Jackson and Smith.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

March 17, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2