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)
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?