Lear v. Manasrah
ORDER adopting 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS finding certain claims cognizable and dismissing other claims and Defendants and referring back to assigned Magistrate Judge signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/2/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,
MANSOUR, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, FINDING CERTAIN
CLAIMS COGNIZABLE AND DISMISSING
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND
REFERRING BACK TO ASSIGNED
(Doc. No. 30)
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California.
On September 19, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations recommending that plaintiff be permitted to proceed on his second amended
complaint against defendant Dr. Yasser Mansour on an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to medical needs claim in his individual capacity and against California State Prison
in Corcoran, California (“CSP-Corcoran”) on an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)
damages claim. (Doc. No. 30.) The magistrate judge also recommended that all other claims and
defendants be dismissed. Although the findings and recommendations provided plaintiff the
opportunity to object thereto, plaintiff subsequently filed a notice indicating his willingness to
proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable by the magistrate judge, indicating he has no
objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 31.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has
conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 19, 2017 (Doc. No. 30) are
adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s case shall proceed on his second amended complaint with respect to his Eighth
Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs against defendant
Mansour, and an ADA claim against CSP-Corcoran. All other claims and defendants are
hereby dismissed; and
3. The case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 2, 2017
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?