Ledesma v. Adame et al

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 59 , 66 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/22/2018: 21-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOSE LEDESMA,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(ECF NOS. 59 & 66)
ADAME, et al.,

14

Defendants.

21-DAY DEADLINE

15
16

Jose Ledesma (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil

17

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Third

18

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

19

Amended Complaint was screened, and the Court found that Plaintiff “stated a claim against

20

defendants Adame, Tyree, and Lundy [“Defendants”] for violations of the Eighth Amendment

21

based on conditions of confinement, against defendants Adame and Lundy for inadequate

22

health care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants Adame, Tyree, and

23

Lundy for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.” (ECF No. 24, p. 15; ECF No. 28,

24

p. 1). All other claims and defendants were dismissed. (ECF No. 28, p. 2). The matter was

25

referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

26

Rule 302.

27

On June 25, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and

28

recommendations, recommending that: 1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and
1

1

denied in part; 2) “This case proceed on Plaintiff’s claims for Eighth Amendment Conditions of

2

Confinement, Eighth Amendment Denial of Medical Care, and First Amendment Retaliation”;

3

3) Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief be dismissed; and 4) “This case

4

proceed against Defendants only in their individual capacities.” (ECF No. 66, pgs. 27-28).

5

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and

6

recommendations. The deadline for filing objections has passed, and no objections have been

7

filed.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

analysis.

12

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

13

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on June 25,

14

2018, are ADOPTED in full;

15

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;

16

3. This case proceed on Plaintiff’s claims for Eighth Amendment Conditions of

17

Confinement, Eighth Amendment Denial of Medical Care, and First Amendment

18

Retaliation;

19

4. Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief are DISMISSED;

20

5. This case proceed against Defendants only in their individual capacities;

21

6. Defendants have twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order to file

22
23

their answer(s); and
7. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2