Aguirre v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 58

ORDER ADOPTING 54 AMENDED FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/4/2014. Defendant's 28 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED as to 1) plainti ff's official capacity claims against individually named defendants; 2) plaintiff's inadequate medical care claims against defendants Place and Kinder; 3) plaintiff's conspiracy claims against defendants Place and Kinder; 4) plaintiff& #039;s negligence claim against defendant Sacramento County. Defendants' Motion is DENIED as to 1) plaintiff's failure to protect claims against all defendants; 2) plaintiff's negligence claims against individually named defendants; 3) the claim that plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust his retaliation claim. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

CARLOS R. AGUIRRE,

10
11
12

No. 2:12-cv-2165 TLN KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

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

16

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

17

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

18

On March 13, 2014, the magistrate judge filed amended findings and recommendations

19

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

20

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff

21

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

analysis.

26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1. The amended findings and recommendations filed March 13, 2014, are adopted in full;

28

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28) is granted in part and denied in part;
1

1

3. Defendants’ motion is granted as to 1) plaintiff’s official capacity claims against the

2

individually named defendants; 2) plaintiff’s inadequate medical care claims against defendants

3

Place and Kinder; 3) plaintiff’s conspiracy claims against defendants Place and Kinder; 4)

4

plaintiff’s negligence claim against defendant Sacramento County; and

5

3. Defendants’ motion is denied as to 1) plaintiff’s failure to protect claims against all

6

defendants; 2) plaintiff’s negligence claims against the individually named defendants; 3) the

7

claim that plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust his retaliation claim.

8

Dated: April 4, 2014

9
10
11
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

12
13

/agui2165.805

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