Torres v. Patel et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants 17 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/3/2019: This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, including initiation of service of process. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MIGUEL TORRES.,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
ISMAIL PATEL, et.al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00188-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 17)

18

Plaintiff Miguel Torres is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

20

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On December 5, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

22

finding that Plaintiff’s amended complaint states a cognizable claim against Defendants Patel, Ulit,

23

Mansrah, Spaeth and Serda, in their individual capacities, for deliberate indifference in violation of the

24

Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 17.) The Magistrate Judge further recommending dismissing all other

25

claims and defendants for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id. at 1.) Those

26

findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto

27

were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id. at 2.) That deadline has passed, and no objections have been

28

filed.
1

1

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

2

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the

3

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

6
7

The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 5, 2018, (Doc. No. 17) are

adopted in full;
2.

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Patel,

8

Ulit, Mansrah, Spaeth and Serda, in their individual capacities, for deliberate indifference in violation

9

of the Eighth Amendment;

10
11
12
13

3.

All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for the failure to state a

cognizable claim; and
4.

This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

consistent with this order, including initiation of service of process.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

January 3, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2