Brown v. Sagireddy

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/10/20 ADOPTING 22 Findings and Recommendations. Defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Dr. Jeffrey Beard are dismissed from this action. This case proceeds, without further amendment to the complaint, on a single Eighth Amendment claim against sole defendant Purushottama Sagireddy for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEXTER BROWN,

12

No. 2:17-cv-2041 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

PURUSHOTTAMA SAGIREDDY,

15

Defendants.

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

17
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 April 22, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were

21

served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and

22

recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff has not filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.1
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

24
25

602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed

26

de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law

27
28

1

It appears plaintiff is deceased. See ECF No. 26. Nevertheless, this action may proceed if an
appropriate successor or representative is substituted for plaintiff. Id.
1

1

by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court

2

. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

3

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 22, 2020, are adopted in full;

6

2. Defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Dr. Jeffrey Beard are dismissed from this

7
8
9
10
11

action;
3. This case proceeds, without further amendment to the complaint, on a single Eighth
Amendment claim against sole defendant Purushottama Sagireddy for deliberate indifference to
plaintiff’s serious medical needs; and
4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial

12

proceedings.

13

DATED: June 10, 2020.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2