Alston v. County of Sacramento Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/6/16 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed October 30, 2015, are adopted in full; this case shall proceed on plaintiff's deliberate indifference and negligence claims against defen dants County of Sacramento, Jones, Fitch, Douglas, Steed, Harrison, Bacoch, Gandhi, Grgich, Carmello, Doe 12, and Doe 13 in connection with their refusal to adhere to his medical "recommendation" or chrono stating he needed to be housed on a lower tier and avoid climbing stairs; Plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act are dismissed for failure to state a claim; the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims except as stated herein; and this matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for service of the second amended complaint on defendants as provided herein. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ALSTON, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:13-cv-1488 KJM KJN P (TEMP) Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants. 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 as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 30, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 27 the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the proper analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 30, 2015, are adopted in full; 3 2. This case shall proceed on plaintiff’s deliberate indifference and negligence claims 4 against defendants County of Sacramento, Jones, Fitch, Douglas, Steed, Harrison, Bacoch, 5 Gandhi, Grgich, Carmello, Doe 12, and Doe 13 in connection with their refusal to adhere to his 6 medical “recommendation” or chrono stating he needed to be housed on a lower tier and avoid 7 climbing stairs; 8 9 10 11 12 3. Plaintiff’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act are dismissed for failure to state a claim; 4. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims except as stated herein; and 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for service of the second 13 amended complaint on defendants as provided herein. 14 DATED: January 6, 2016 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?