Brownlee v. Clayton et al

Filing 83

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/29/2012 ORDERING 76 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are ADOPTED in full; 41 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 61 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED; this action shall proceed as to defendants Clayton, Kansier an d Sahota solely on plaintiff's claim that they were deliberately indifferent to plaintitt's serious medical condition when the chrono restriction indicating that plaintiff was not the have to get down during alarms was removed. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16

No. CIV S-08-0661 LKK GGH P

vs.
R. CLAYTON, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

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

19

On August 12, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

20

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

21

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff

22

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations; defendants Clayton, Kansier and

23

Sahota also filed objections after being granted an extension of time to do so.

24

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

25

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

26

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
1

1

by proper analysis.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 12, 2011, are adopted in full;

4

2. The motion to dismiss, filed on September 23, 2010 (docket #41), on behalf of

5

defendants Stocker and Grannis is granted;

6
7

3. The motion to dismiss, filed on December 13, 2010 (docket #61), on behalf of
defendants Clayton, Kansier and Sahota is denied; and

8
9

4. This action shall proceed as to defendants Clayton, Kansier and Sahota solely
on plaintiff’s claim that they were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical condition

10

when the chrono restriction indicating that plaintiff was not to have to get down during alarms

11

was removed.

12

DATED: March 29, 2012.

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