Mixon, Jr. v. Tyson et al
ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants; action shall proceed against Defendants Jiminez and Metts on Plaintiff's claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in vio lation of the Eighth Amendment; Plaintiffs requests for injunctive and declaratory relief are denied;all other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; referred back to the magistrate judge, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/9/18. (Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LENDWARD ALTON MIXON, JR.,
H. TYSON, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 16)
Plaintiff Lendward Alton Mixon, Jr. (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
On December 22, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations recommending that this action proceed against defendants Jiminez and Metts
for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, that plaintiff’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief be denied, and that all
other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action. (Doc. No. 16) The findings and
recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were
to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) Plaintiff timely filed objections which
were mailed on January 8, 2018, and docketed by the court on January 16, 2018. (Doc. No. 17.)
Therein, plaintiff objects to dismissal of the defendant Commissioner, but fails to point to any
facts alleged in his complaint showing that the Commissioner “participated in or directed the
violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d
1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). As explained in the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations, liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may not be imposed on supervisory personnel
for the actions or omissions of their subordinates under the theory of respondeat superior, and
may only be imposed if the supervisory personnel personally violated a constitutional right.
(Doc. No. 16 at 4.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
by proper analysis.
1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 22, 2017 (Doc. No. 16)
are adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed against defendants Jiminez and Metts on plaintiff’s claim
for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
3. Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief are denied;
4. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for the failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
5. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 9, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?