Lopez v. Krieg, et al.

Filing 79

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/10/15 ADOPTING 76 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Defendants 71 motion to dismiss is granted in part; Defendants Freichter and Zamora are dismissed from this action; and this action proceeds on plaintiffs Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference claims against defendants Krieg and McDow.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD LOPEZ,

12

No. 2:13-cv-1176 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. KRIEG, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17
18

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

19

Judge as provided 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 6, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 fourteen days. Defendants have 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,

24
25

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

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

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

2

analysis. The court notes the following correction to the sentence at page 13, lines 16-20. That

3

sentence should read “Defendants Krieg and McDow exercised their medical judgment to

4

conclude not only that plaintiff’s objective dental needs and subjective complaints did not come

5

within the criteria of the Prosthodontic Guideline, but also that these factors did not warrant a

6

Special Prosthetic Needs exemption request to the DAR.”

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. With the correction noted in this order, the findings and recommendations filed

9

July 6, 2015 are adopted in full;

10

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part;

11

3. Defendants Freichter and Zamora are dismissed from this action; and

12

4. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical deliberate

13

indifference claims against defendants Krieg and McDow.

14

DATED: August 10, 2015.

15
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2