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)

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