Smith v. Fantone et al
Filing
57
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23 , 24 & 53 signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/23/2018: This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
TRAYVONE SMITH,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01179-LJO-EPG (PC)
8
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
9
10
11
v.
(ECF NOS. 23, 24, & 53)
EMMANUEL J. FANTONE and
JASWANT KHOKHAR,
Defendants.
12
13
Trayvone Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
14
pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred
15
to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
16
On March 23, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and
17
recommendations, recommending that all claims, except for Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate
18
indifference to serious medical needs against defendants Fantone and Khokhar and his claim
19
for violation of due process against defendant Khokhar, be dismissed (with Plaintiff’s state law
20
claims being dismissed without prejudice). (ECF No. 53, p. 8).
21
The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
22
recommendations. The deadline for filing objections has passed and no objections have been
23
filed.
24
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
25
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
26
the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
27
analysis.
28
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
1
1
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on March 23,
2
2018, are ADOPTED IN FULL;
3
2. All claims, except for Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical
4
needs against defendants Fantone and Khokhar and his claim for violation of due
5
process against defendant Khokhar, are DISMISSED (Plaintiff’s state law claims
6
are dismissed without prejudice); and
7
3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
April 23, 2018
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?