Shields v. Cannon et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/18/2013 ORDERING defendant's 29 Objections are OVERRULED; adopting 28 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full; defendant's 13 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend the complaint as to Count 2 only. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

PAUL ANDREW SHIELDS,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
KELLY L. CANNON, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

No. 2:11-cv-3185 JAM AC P

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 January 14, 2013, 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 twenty-eight days.

22

Defendants have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

proper analysis.
1

1

Specifically, defendants claim that the magistrate recommended granting plaintiff

2

leave to amend Count 2 as to defendants Maness and Cannon only, and asks that all remaining

3

defendants be dismissed with prejudice. See ECF No. 29 at 2-3. Defendants are incorrect. The

4

magistrate instead recommended dismissing count two with leave to amend “that portion of his

5

complaint concerning his treatment, or non-treatment, for hepatitis and cirrhosis,” and also

6

specifically noted that plaintiff had failed to identify the appropriate defendants for his claim.

7

ECF No. 28 at 14-15. Defendants’ objections will be overruled.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. Defendants’ objections, filed January 17, 2013, (ECF No. 29) are overruled;

10

2. The findings and recommendations filed January 14, 2013 are adopted in full;

11

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is granted, and plaintiff is granted

12

leave to amend the complaint as to Count 2 only.

13

DATED:

14

March 18, 2013
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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