Lavery v. Dhillon

Filing 146

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/4/17 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 9/19/17 144 are ADOPTED in full; and Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference toward a serious medical need against Defendants Rading, Ditomas, and Clark are DISMISSED without leave to amend. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH LAVERY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-2083 MCE AC P v. ORDER B. DHILLON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, has filed this civil rights action seeking 17 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 19, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Defendant Dhillon 23 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 /// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 19, 2017, (ECF No. 144) are 3 ADOPTED in full; and 4 2. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference toward a serious 5 medical need against defendants Rading, Ditomas, and Clark are DISMISSED without leave to 6 amend. 7 8 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 4, 2017 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?