Rushdan v. Hamkar et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/24/2013 ADOPTING 44 Findings and Recommendations in full and GRANTING 19 Motion to Dismiss as follows: Defendants Sahota and Bal are DISMISSED from this action; Plaintiff claims that defend ants denied him post-surgical pain medication in violation of the eighth amendment are DISMISSED; Plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED; Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is MOOT; and Defendants Hamkar, Ali and Nangalama are DIRECTED to file an answer to the remaining claims in this action. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SALADIN RUSHDAN,

12

No. 2:12-cv-0562 MCE CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

HAMKAR, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20

On June 6, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

21

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

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. After being granted a

23

thirty-day extension of time on August 8, 2013, plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

24

recommendations.

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

26

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

27

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

28

analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 6, 2013 (ECF No. 44), are ADOPTED in

3
4
5

full;
2. Defendants’ October 19, 2012 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED to the
following extent:

6

a. Defendants Sahota and Bal are dismissed from this action;

7

b. Plaintiff’s claims that defendants denied him post-surgical pain medication in

8

violation of the Eighth Amendment are dismissed;

9

c. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed;

10
11

d. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot; and
3. Defendants Hamkar, Ali, and Nangalama are directed to file an answer to the remaining

12

claims in this action.

13

Dated: September 24, 2013

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2