Klahn v. Wasco State Prison et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/17/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL P. KLAHN, Sr.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:16-cv-00342-DAD-JLT

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 17, 19)

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Daniel P. Klahn, Sr., is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred

19

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

20

On March 15, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened the second amended

21

complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff be allowed to

22

proceed on his claim against defendant R. Seitz, D.D.S. for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s

23

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that the remainder of plaintiff’s

24

claims be dismissed. (Doc. No. 19.) The findings and recommendation were served on plaintiff

25

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days after

26

service. (Id. at 17.) To date, plaintiff has filed no objections to the findings and

27

recommendations, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

28

/////
1

1

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

2

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

3

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

6
7

The findings and recommendations issued March 15, 2018 (Doc. No. 19) are
adopted in full;

2.

This action for damages shall proceed on the claim in plaintiff’s second amended

8

complaint (Doc. No. 17) against defendant R. Seitz, D.D.S. for deliberate

9

indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

10

Amendment;

11

3.

All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and

12

4.

The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further

13
14
15
16

proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 17, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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