Pitts v. Davis et al
Filing
66
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/20/13 ORDERING the findings and recommendations filed 7/24/13, are adopted in full; Defendants' 2/13/13 motion to dismiss 24 is granted, and the following claims are dismissed without prejudi ce: the claim against defendants Braunger and Kiesz re their alleged failure to provide timely access to a primary care physician; and all claims against defendants Austin, Morgan, Mefford, McAlpine, Trujillo, Davis, Fleischman, and Villanueva (de la Vega); Plaintiff's 5/31/13 motion for a stay 32 is denied; this action proceeds on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Fontillas, Froland and Broughn; This action also proceeds on plaintiffs claim that defendants Braunger and Keisz were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in relation to the delay in plaintiff's receiving his prescribed medication. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EDDIE L. PITTS,
12
No. 2:12-cv-0823 TLN AC P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
C. DAVIS, 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.
On July 24, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
20
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 twenty-one days. Plaintiff has filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
24
25
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
26
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
27
analysis.
28
////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed July 24, 2013, are adopted in full;
3
2. Defendants’ February 13, 2013 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) is granted, and the
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
following claims are dismissed without prejudice:
(a) the claim against defendants Braunger and Kiesz regarding their alleged failure to
provide timely access to a primary care physician; and
(b) all claims against defendants Austin, Morgan, Mefford, McAlpine, Trujillo, Davis,
Fleischman, and Villanueva (de la Vega)
3. Plaintiff’s May 31, 2013 motion for a stay (ECF No. 32) is denied;
4. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants
Fontillas, Froland and Broughn.
5. This action also proceeds on plaintiffs claim that defendants Braunger and Keisz were
13
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in relation to the delay in plaintiff’s receiving his
14
prescribed medication.
15
DATED: November 20, 2013
16
17
18
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
19
20
21
/pitt0823.805
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?