Villery v. California Department of Corrections, et al.

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants 25 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/20/17: This action is REFERRED back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED M. VILLERY, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:15-cv-00987-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY BEARD, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 25) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Jared M. Villery is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 5, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 22 complaint (Doc. No. 22) and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action 23 proceed against defendants Kendall, Acosta, Naficy, Jones, Guerrero, Aithal, Seymour, 24 Carrizales, Woodard, Pallares, Hernandez, Fisher, Grimmig, and Miranda for deliberate 25 indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants Beard and Kernan for 26 promulgation of a policy to deny single cell housing for inmates with serious mental disorders in 27 violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 25.) The magistrate judge further recommended 28 that plaintiff’s claims against defendants CDCR, J. Lewis, R. L. Briggs, K. Z. Allen, Oleg 1 1 Liflyandsky, C. Cornell, Barbara Zager, Kimberly Holland, R. A. Groves, and C. Schuyler be 2 dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) 3 The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 4 objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. More than thirty days 5 have passed, and no objections have been filed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 8 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 Accordingly, 10 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 5, 2017 (Doc. No. 25) are adopted in full; 12 2. This action shall proceed against defendants Kendall, Acosta, Naficy, Jones, 13 Guerrero, Aithal, Seymour, Carrizales, Woodard, Pallares, Hernandez, Fisher, Grimmig, and 14 Miranda for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants 15 Beard and Kernan for promulgation of a policy to deny single cell housing for inmates with 16 serious mental disorders, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 17 3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants CDCR, J. Lewis, R. L. Briggs, K. Z. Allen, 18 Oleg Liflyandsky, C. Cornell, Barbara Zager, Kimberly Holland, R. A. Groves, and C. Schuyler 19 are dismissed from this action for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 20 and 21 4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings 22 consistent with this order. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: October 20, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?