Ledesma v. Adame et al

Filing 28

ORDER adopting 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismissing Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/20/2017. Defendant, K. Holland is dismissed. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOSE LEDESMA,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
ADAME, et al.,
Defendants.

1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF NO. 25)
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS

15
16

Jose Ledesma (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

17

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on

18

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, which was filed on September 15, 2016. (ECF No. 23).

19

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On November 7, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered an order, finding

22

that Plaintiff stated a claim against defendants Adame, Tyree, and Lundy for violation of the

23

Eighth Amendment based on conditions of confinement, against defendants Adame and Lundy

24

for inadequate health care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants

25

Adame, Tyree, and Lundy for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 24).

26

On that same day, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations,

27

recommending that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action, with

28

prejudice. (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the
1

1

findings and recommendations within thirty days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or

2

otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations.

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

4

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

5

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

6

analysis.

7

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

8

1.

9
10

The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on
November 7, 2016, are ADOPTED in full;

2.

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, filed on

11

September 15, 2016, against defendants Adame, Tyree, and Lundy for violation

12

of the Eighth Amendment based on conditions of confinement, against

13

defendants Adame and Lundy for inadequate health care in violation of the

14

Eighth Amendment, and against defendants Adame, Tyree, and Lundy for

15

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

16

3.

17
18

prejudice;
4.

19
20

All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action, with

The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendant K. Holland on the
Court’s docket; and

5.

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 20, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2