Caesar v. Beard, et al.

Filing 49

ORDER ADOPTING 41 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/01/2017. Jeffrey Beard terminated from action. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DANNY CAESAR,

11
12
13
14

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01726-DAD-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. Nos. 40–41)

15
16
17
18

Plaintiff Danny Caesar is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended

20

complaint (“SAC”), filed March 16, 2017. (Doc. No. 40.) The matter was referred to a United States

21

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On March 27, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended

23

complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that: (i) this action proceed only

24

on plaintiff’s claims against defendants Patel, Lopez, and Nanditha for deliberate indifference to his

25

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Patel for

26

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and (ii) plaintiff’s ADA claim be dismissed for failure

27

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 41.)

28
1

Those findings and

1

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to be

2

filed within thirty days. (Id. at 8.)

3

On June 5, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections

4

to the March 27, 2017 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 45.) More than thirty days have

5

passed since that order was issued, and no objections were filed.

6

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

7

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned concludes that

8

the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.

9
10

Accordingly,
1.

full;

11
12

The findings and recommendation issued March 27, 2017 (Doc. No. 41) are adopted in

2.

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed March 16, 2017,

13

against defendants Patel, Lopez, and Nanditha for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s

14

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant

15

Patel for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;

16

3.

docket shall reflect these dismissals; and

17
18

Defendant Jeffrey Beard, and all other claims, are dismissed from this action, and the

4.

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order.

19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 1, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2