Burell v. Lozovoy et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING 26 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Defendants, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/20/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
ANGEE BURRELL,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01118-SAB (PC)

9
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff,
10
v.
11

[ECF No. 26]

RUSLAN LOZOVOY, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14
15

Plaintiff Angee Burrell is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this

16 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States
17 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
18

On December 7, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

19 recommendations recommending that this action should proceed on Plaintiff’s claim for
20 deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against
21 Defendants Lozovoy and Sao, and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against
22 Defendant Sao. (ECF No. 26.) The magistrate judge further recommended that all other
23 defendants be dismissed for the failure to state a claim against them upon which relief may be
24 granted. (Id.) Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and
25 recommendations. No objections were filed.
26

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

27 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. The undersigned concludes the
28 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

1

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

are adopted in full;

3
4

The findings and recommendations issued on December 7, 2017 (ECF No. 26),

2.

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to a

5

serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants

6

Lozovoy and Sao, and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against

7

Defendant Sao;

8

3.

state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and

9
10

All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for the failure to

4.

This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: April 20, 2018

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2