Armstrong v. Garcia, et al
Filing
23
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/8/2011 RECOMMENDING that the retaliation claims against defendants Gillette, Barton, Callison, Roche, Rohlfing, Mangis and Davey based on their alleged denial of plaintiff's request for a wheelchair be dismissed; the claims against defendants Garcia, Chandler, Young, Turner, Brewer, McCue, Fernandez and Chan be dismissed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 21 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
vs.
SILVIA GARCIA, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
No. 2: 11-cv-0965 GEB KJN P
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
/
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action
17
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The undersigned has separately issued an order screening
18
plaintiff’s amended complaint filed October 19, 2011. In this order, the undersigned found
19
cognizable the Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Gillette, Barton, Callison, Dial,
20
Roche, Rohfling, Davey, Mangis, Leo and James. The undersigned also found cognizable the
21
retaliation claim against defendant Gillette based on her alleged failure to treat plaintiff for a
22
stroke on April 26, 2004.
23
In this separate order, the undersigned found that plaintiff had not stated colorable
24
retaliation claims against defendants Gillette, Barton, Callison, Roche, Rohlfing, Mangis and
25
Davey based on their alleged denial of plaintiff’s request for a wheelchair. The undersigned also
26
found that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Garcia, Chandler, Young, Turner, Brewer,
1
1
McCue, Fernandez and Chan should be dismissed because they were unrelated to those claims
2
found cognizable. For the reasons stated in that order, the undersigned now recommends
3
dismissal of these claims.
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the retaliation claims
5
against defendants Gillette, Barton, Callison, Roche, Rohlfing, Mangis and Davey based on their
6
alleged denial of plaintiff’s request for a wheelchair be dismissed; the claims against defendants
7
Garcia, Chandler, Young, Turner, Brewer, McCue, Fernandez and Chan be dismissed.
8
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
9
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-
10
one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written
11
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
12
Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served
13
within fourteen days after service to the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
14
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
15
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
16
DATED: November 8, 2011
17
18
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
arm965.56
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?