Applegate v. CCI, et al.

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING 24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART 16 MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING DEFENDANTS' J. Lewis, CCHCS and CCI signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/7/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRIAN APPLEGATE,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:16-cv-01343-DAD-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN
PART AND DENY IN PART MOTION TO
DISMISS

CCI, et al.,
Defendants.

(Doc. Nos. 16, 24)

17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

19

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

20

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States

21

District Court for the Eastern District of California.

22

On April 26, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

23

recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc.

24

No. 24.) The magistrate judge recommended denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the entire

25

action, but recommended dismissal of California Correctional Institution, California Correctional

26

Health Care Services, and Defendant Lewis, as duplicative defendants. The findings and

27

recommendations advised the parties that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen

28

days. No objections were filed and the time for doing so has passed.
1

1

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

2

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, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 26, 2017 (Doc. No. 24) are adopted in

6

full;

7

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is granted in part and denied in part;

8

3. Defendants California Correctional Institution, California Correctional Health Care

9

Services, and J. Lewis are dismissed from this action with prejudice; and

10

4. The action shall proceed only against the defendant California Department of

11
12
13

Corrections and Rehabilitation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 7, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2