(PC) Embrey v. McComas et al
ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Non-Cognizable Claims signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/19/2020.(Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JORDAN LEE EMBREY,
No. 1:20-cv-00650-DAD-BAM (PC)
MCCOMAS, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
(Doc. No. 12)
Plaintiff Jordan Lee Embrey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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.
On September 25, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint
on plaintiff’s medical deliberate indifference claim against defendants Dr. Obendena and
Williams. (Doc. No. 12.) The magistrate judge further recommended that all other federal claims
and all other defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state claims
upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on
plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14)
days from the date of service. (Id.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations
have been filed with the court, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 25, 2020 (Doc. No. 12) are
adopted in full;
2. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed September 1, 2020
(Doc. No. 10), against defendants Obendena and Williams for deliberate indifference
to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
3. All other federal claims and all other defendants are dismissed from this action due to
plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 19, 2020
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?