Barnett v. Fisher, Jr.
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDERED that this action shall proceed solely on the claim in plaintiffs second amended complaint against Warden R. Fisher, Jr. and Does 1 through 4 for deliberate indifference of plaintiffs safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment; ORDERED this matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/15/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DELBERT BARNETT,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:17-cv-01361-DAD-JLT (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
v.
R. FISHER, JR., et al.,
(Doc. No. 15)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Delbert Barnett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
18
civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United
19
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On November 26, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened the second amended
21
complaint and issued findings and recommendations that this action should proceed on plaintiff’s
22
claims under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Fisher and Does 1–4, and that all other
23
claims and defendants should be dismissed. (Doc. No. 15.) Those findings and recommendations
24
were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within
25
twenty-one (21) days of service. (Id. at 8.) To date, plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the
26
time period for doing so has expired.
27
28
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
1
1
2
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly,
3
1. The findings and recommendations issued November 26, 2018 (Doc. No. 15) are
4
adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed solely on the claim in plaintiff’s second amended
5
6
complaint against Warden R. Fisher, Jr. and Does 1–4 for deliberate indifference
7
of plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
8
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and
9
4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
10
11
12
13
proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 15, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?