(PC) Fields v. Roberts, No. 1:2006cv00407 - Document 56 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 54 SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DISMISSING Certain Claims; and ORDER REFERRING Action to Magistrate Judge, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/16/2011. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint, filed June 24, 2010, against Defendants Neubarth and Roberts. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Fields v. Roberts Doc. 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 KEVIN FIELDS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) P. ROBERTS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) NO. 1:06 cv 00407 AWI GSA PC ORDER RE: FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND REFERRING ACTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE Document # 54 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was 17 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 18 302. 19 On December 23, 2010, supplemental findings and recommendations were entered, 20 recommending dismissal of certain claims and defendants. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity 21 to file objections within thirty days. On December 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a document styled as 22 a waiver to objections to the findings and recommendations. In this submission, Plaintiff 23 indicates that he does not object to the findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this 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 proper analysis 27 except as ordered below as to Defendant Roberts. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 2 1. 3 4 The Supplemental Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on December 23, 2010, are adopted in full; and 2. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint, filed June 24, 2010, 5 against Defendant Neubarth for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious 6 medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against Defendant Roberts 7 for retaliation from February 28, 2006, to March 15, 2006, and on Plaintiff’s state 8 law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. 9 3. 10 11 The remaining claims as to Defendant Roberts are dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 4. 12 This action is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings as to Defendants Neubarth and Roberts. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: 0m8i78 March 16, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
