Asberry v. Biter
Filing
25
ORDER ADOPTING 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for Action to Proceed Only on Cognizable Claims and that all other claims and Defendants be Dismissed, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 05/05/17. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TONY ASBERRY,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 1:16-cv-01741-DAD-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN BITER, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION TO
PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE
CLAIMS AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED
(Doc. Nos. 1, 17)
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 January 24, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and
23
concluded that it stated the following cognizable claims: an Eighth Amendment claim for
24
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against defendants Lozovoy and Relevante
25
(formerly identified as defendant “Doe 3,” see Doc. No. 14); an Eighth Amendment conditions of
26
confinement claim against defendants Ferris and Godfrey; and a First Amendment retaliation
27
claim against defendants Ferris and Godfrey. (Doc. No. 5.) The magistrate judge concluded that
28
the remaining claims presented in plaintiff’s complaint were not cognizable as pled. (Doc. No.
1
1
5.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint or notify the court in writing if he wished
2
to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the court’s screening order. (Id.)
3
Plaintiff responded that he did not wish to amend and instead wishes to proceed only on the
4
claims found by the court to be cognizable. (Doc. No. 7.) Accordingly, on February 28, 2017,
5
the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed
6
only on the claims found to cognizable in the screening order and that the remaining claims and
7
defendants be dismissed from this action. (Doc. No. 17.) Plaintiff filed no objections to the
8
findings and recommendations and the time for doing so has passed.
9
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
10
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
11
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
12
Accordingly,
13
1. The court adopts in full the findings and recommendations filed February 28, 2017
14
(Doc. No. 17);
15
2. This action shall proceed only on the following claims: an Eighth Amendment
16
claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendants
17
Lozovoy and Relevante; an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim
18
against defendants Ferris and Godfrey; and a First Amendment retaliation claim
19
against defendants Ferris and Godfrey; and
20
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state a
21
22
23
claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 5, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?