Dillingham v. Emerson

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING 61 Findings and Recommendation, and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 54 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/20/20. Referred Back to Magistrate Judge. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JERRY DILLINGHAM,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
N. EMERSON, et al.,

13

Case No. 1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION, AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF Nos. 54, 61)

Defendants.

14
Plaintiff Jerry Dillingham is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

15
16

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

17

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 19, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge filed findings and

18
19

recommendation, recommending that Defendant Velasco’s, Martines’s, Loftin’s, Emerson’s,

20

Marsh’s, Wescoat’s, and Wilson’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim based

21

on qualified immunity be denied. (ECF No. 61.) The findings and recommendation were served

22

on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30)

23

days after service. (Id. at 10.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has

24

passed.

25

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

26

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

27

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation are supported by the record and by proper

28

analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3

The findings and recommendations filed on December 19, 2019, (ECF No. 61), are
adopted in full;

4

2.

Defendants Velasco’s, Martines’s, Loftin’s, Emerson’s, Marsh’s, Wescoat’s, and

5

Wilson’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, (ECF No. 54), is

6

DENIED; and

7

3.

8

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

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 20, 2020
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2