John Doe Smith v. Mims et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING 29 Findings and Recommendations, GRANTING In Part 24 Motion to Dismiss, and DENYING Motion to Strike, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/27/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL TREBAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:16-cv-00461-DAD-EPG

v.
MARGARET MIMS, et al.,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN
PART MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 24, 29)

16

Plaintiff Daniel Trebas is a state prisoner represented in this action by counsel, alleging

17
18

claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) The case was removed from Alameda

19

County Superior Court on January 29, 2016. (Id.) On January 9, 2017, the assigned magistrate

20

judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be

21

granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 29.) The findings and recommendations were

22

served on all parties with instructions that any objections thereto must be filed within twenty

23

days. No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has

24
25

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

26

undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper

27

analysis.

28

/////
1

1

Given the above:

2

1. The January 9, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 29) are adopted in full;

3

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed on October 18, 2016 (Doc. No. 24), is granted in

4
5

part and denied in part;
3. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 22) shall proceed on the following

6

claims: (1) against defendants Orr and Thomas for professional negligence under California

7

common law; (2) against defendants Orr, Thomas and Moreno for deliberate indifference to

8

serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and, (3) against defendant

9

Thomas for violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act;

10

4. All other named defendants and causes of action are dismissed. Specifically,

11

defendants Corizon Healthcare, Sheriff Margaret Mims, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department, and

12

Does 1–50 are dismissed from this action; and,

13
14
15

5. Defendants’ motion to strike, filed on October 18, 2016 (Doc. No. 24), is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 27, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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