(PC) Sevilla v. Adams, et al., No. 1:2006cv00172 - Document 74 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 71 72 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; dismissing certain claims and defendants from fifth amended complaint and DENYING 69 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. Defendants Darrel Adams, Edgar Castillo, Steinberg, Alameida and McKesson are DISMISSED from this action. Signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/2/2010. (Vasquez, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Sevilla v. Adams, et al. Doc. 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RONALD VICTOR SEVILLA, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:06-cv-000172-LJO-SMS PC ORDER (1) ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (1) DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FROM FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, (3) AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. DERRAL ADAMS, et al., 13 Defendants. (Docs. 56, 69, and 71) 14 / 15 Plaintiff Ronald Victor Sevilla, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 16, 2006. The matter was referred 17 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On September 7, 2010, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint 19 and issued findings and recommendations for dismissal of certain claims and defendants. Also issued 20 was a separate finding and recommendation for denial of Plaintiff’s motion seeking preliminary 21 injunctive relief. Objections, if any, were due within thirty days. None were filed. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 23 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 24 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations, filed September 7, 2010, are adopted in full; 3 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint, filed May 18, 2009, 4 against Defendants Bradish, Roscoe, Gonzales, and Bhatt on Plaintiff’s Eighth 5 Amendment medical care claims; 6 3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim against Defendant Nguyen; claims 7 against Defendants Castillo, Adams, Steinberg, and Alameida; section 845.6 claim; 8 and equal protection claim are dismissed for failure to state a claim; 9 4. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant McKesson are dismissed pursuant to Rule 18; 10 5. Defendants Castillo, Adams, Steinberg, Alameida, and McKesson are dismissed from 11 this action; and 12 6. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed August 2, 2010, is denied. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: b9ed48 December 2, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
