Sifuentes v. Ola, et al.

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations That This Action Proceed Only Against Defendant Ola for Failure to Provide Adequate Medical Care in Violation of the Eighth Amendment and Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/13/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIGUEL G. SIFUENTES,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

DR. OLA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

No. 1: 16-cv-00241-DAD-GSA
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT
OLA FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE IN
VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT AND DISMISSING ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS \
(Doc. No. 37)

18
19

Plaintiff Miguel G. Sifuentes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

20

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

21

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

22

On February 28, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and

23

recommendations, recommending that this case proceed only against defendant Dr. Ola for failure

24

to provide adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that all other claims

25

and defendants be dismissed from this case for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff

26

was granted fourteen days to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 3.) The

27

fourteen-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not filed objections or responded otherwise to

28

the findings and recommendations.
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

2

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

3

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

6
7

The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on February 28,
2019 (Doc. No. 37) are adopted;

2.

This action now proceeds with plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on April

8

26, 2017, against defendant Dr. Ola for failure to provide adequate medical care in

9

violation of the Eighth Amendment;

10

3.

All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action;

11

4.

This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings,

12
13
14
15

including initiation of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 13, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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