Caesar v. Beard, et al.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 1:13-cv-01726-DAD-BAM (PC)
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. Nos. 40–41)
Plaintiff Danny Caesar is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended
complaint (“SAC”), filed March 16, 2017. (Doc. No. 40.) The matter was referred to a United States
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 27, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended
complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that: (i) this action proceed only
on plaintiff’s claims against defendants Patel, Lopez, and Nanditha for deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Patel for
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and (ii) plaintiff’s ADA claim be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 41.)
Those findings and
recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to be
filed within thirty days. (Id. at 8.)
On June 5, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections
to the March 27, 2017 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 45.) More than thirty days have
passed since that order was issued, and no objections were filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted
a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned concludes that
the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.
The findings and recommendation issued March 27, 2017 (Doc. No. 41) are adopted in
This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed March 16, 2017,
against defendants Patel, Lopez, and Nanditha for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s
serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant
Patel for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment;
docket shall reflect these dismissals; and
Defendant Jeffrey Beard, and all other claims, are dismissed from this action, and the
This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 1, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?