Guerra v. Kern County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 23

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 17 Regarding Dismissal of Claims Against Defendants in their Official Capacities, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/17/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8
9

JOAQUIN GUERRA,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-01077-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES
(ECF No. 17)

15
16

Plaintiff Joaquin Guerra (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this

18

action while a pre-trial detainee at the Kern County Jail.

19

On October 10, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

20

this action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on July 7, 2014, against

21

Defendants Sweeney, Feely and Jane Doe #1 in their individual capacities for deliberate

22

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and that

23

Plaintiff’s official capacity claims be dismissed from this action. The Findings and

24

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be

25

filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 17.) On October 28, 2014, the Magistrate Judge

26

granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file any objections. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff

27

filed untimely objections on December 8, 2014. (ECF No. 22.)

28
1

1

In his objections, Plaintiff asserts that he has stated a claim for deliberate indifference to

2

serious medical needs and that liability should be imposed against public employees. Plaintiff’s

3

objections do not identify any error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations.

4

Insofar as Plaintiff may believe that his claims have been dismissed, this belief is incorrect. The

5

Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint move forward on his deliberate

6

indifference claim against Defendants in their individual capacities.

7

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

8

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

9

untimely objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the

10

record and by proper analysis.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, issued on October 10, 2014, are adopted in

2.

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on July 7,

13
14

full;

15

2014, against Defendants Sweeney, Feely and Jane Doe #1 in their individual capacities for

16

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;

17
18
19
20

3.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed

from this action; and
4.

This action shall be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

consistent with this order.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: December 17, 2014

24

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2