Meyers v. Biter et al

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting Findings And Recommendation, Denying Defendant's Motion To Dismiss, And Referring Matter Back To Magistrate Judge For Further Proceedings (Doc.Nos. 13 , 15 ), signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/7/2016. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EVERETT LEE MEYERS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
C.K. CHEN,
Defendant.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-01954-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION, DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
(Doc. Nos. 13, 15)

Plaintiff Everett Lee Meyers is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On August 31, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

20

recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint be denied. Those findings and

21

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

22

filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed a statement of no objection to the recommendation on

23

September 28, 2015. Defendant Dr. Chen filed objections to the findings and recommendations on

24

September 30, 2015.

25

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

26

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and

27

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In short, plaintiff has alleged

28

sufficient facts in his first amended complaint that, if proven, would entitle him to relief on his claim
1

1

that defendant denied him appropriate treatment for reasons unrelated to plaintiff’s medical needs.

2

Dismissal based upon review of defendant’s response to plaintiff’s inmate grievance, as suggested by

3

defendant in his objections, is not appropriate. In addition, the court cannot resolve defendant’s claim

4

of entitlement to qualified immunity without further factual development of plaintiff’s claim.

5

Based on the foregoing,

6

1.

The findings and recommendation, filed on August 31, 2015, are adopted in full;

7

2.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint is DENIED; and

8

3.

The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated:

January 7, 2016
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2