Edward v McDonald et al
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/10/2011 ORDERING that the 16 findings and recommendations filed February 11, 2011, are adopted infull. This action proceeds on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical care claim against defendants Petersen, Hogan, Martin, Arnold, Medina, and Swingle only and all other defendants and claims are dismissed with prejudice. (Duong, D)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MEL TYRONE EDWARD,
12
No. CIV S-10-0979-JAM-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
ORDER
14
M.D. McDONALD, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
/
17
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
18
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
19
Eastern District of California local rules.
20
On February 11, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations
21
herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file
22
objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have
23
been filed.
24
///
25
///
26
///
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule
2
304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the
3
entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
4
proper analysis.
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1.
The findings and recommendations filed February 11, 2011, are adopted in
2.
This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim
7
8
9
10
11
full;
against defendants Petersen, Hogan, Martin, Arnold, Medina, and Swingle only; and
3.
All other defendants and claims are dismissed with prejudice.
DATED: May 10, 2011
12
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?