Nguyen v. California Prison Health Service, et al.
Filing
84
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/28/17 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed March 10, 2017 (ECF No. 65 ), are ADOPTED IN FULL; Defendant Elam's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 51 ) is GRANTED; and Plaintiff's claims against Elam are DISMISSED with prejudice.(Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
NAM BA NGUYEN,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:13-cv-963-MCE-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
CALIFORNIA PRISON HEALTH
SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
19
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
20
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On March 10, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
22
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
23
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 65. Plaintiff
24
has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 66.
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
27
file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
28
proper analysis.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 10, 2017 (ECF No. 65), are
3
ADOPTED IN FULL;
4
2. Defendant Elam’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 51) is GRANTED; and
5
3. Plaintiff’s claims against Elam are DISMISSED with prejudice.
6
It is so ordered.
7
Dated: September 28, 2017
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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?