Jones v. Jaffe et al

Filing 59

ORDER ADOPTING in full 56 Findings and Recommendations signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 8/23/13; DENYING AS MOOT 25 Motion to Dismiss and 30 Motion to Dismiss; GRANTING 42 Motion to Amend the Complaint and plaintiff's proposed [ 43] second amended complaint is deemed the operative pleading in this action; defendants Grubbs and Jaffe (Dr.) are DISMISSED from this action at plaintiff's request; plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED at plaintiff's request; defendant Dr. O'Neill is DIRECTED to file an answer in response to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims within 30 days. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

HENRY A. JONES,
Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13

No. 2:11-cv-2049 LKK DAD P

DR. JAFFE et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

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

16
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.
On July 26, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

19
20

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

21

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed

22

objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

23
24

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

25

ORDERED that:

26

/////
1

1

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 26, 2013, are adopted in full;

2

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 42) is granted and plaintiff’s proposed

3

second amended complaint (Doc. No. 43) is deemed the operative pleading in this action;

4

3. Defendant Dr. O’Neill’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No 25) is denied as moot;

5

4. Defendants Dr. Jaffe and Dr. Frazier-Grubbs are dismissed from this action at

6
7
8
9
10

plaintiff’s request;
5. Defendants Dr. Jaffe and Dr. Frazier-Grubbs’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 30)
is denied as moot;
6. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed at plaintiff’s request;
7. Defendant Dr. O’Neill is directed to file an answer in response to plaintiff’s

11

Eighth Amendment claims within thirty days.

12

DATED: August 23, 2013.

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