(PC) Sang v. Baker, No. 1:2006cv01496 - Document 65 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 59 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants, Requiring Defendant Baker to File a Response to Third Amended Complaint within Thirty Days, and Referring Matter back to Magistrate Judge to Initiate Service of Process Proceedings on Defendant Nguyen signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/15/2010. Response to Complaint due by 11/22/2010. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Sang v. Baker Doc. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 THON NGOT SANG, 10 CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01496-AWI-SMS PC Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, REQUIRING DEFENDANT BAKER TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO INITIATE SERVICE OF PROCESS PROCEEDINGS ON DEFENDANT NGUYEN R. BAKER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 (Docs. 58 and 59) 16 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 17 / 18 Plaintiff Thon Ngot Sang, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 19 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 5, 2006. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 21 302. 22 On August 12, 2010, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint 23 and issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and 24 defendants. The parties were given thirty days within which to file objections, and on September 25 21, 2010, Plaintiff was granted a fifteen-day extension of time. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant 26 Baker filed any objections.1 27 28 1 Defendant Baker made an appearance in this action on July 28, 2008. (Doc. 32.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 3 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 12, 2010, is adopted in full; 6 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, filed June 24, 7 2010, on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claims against Defendant Baker 8 and against Defendant Nguyen arising out of the incident on January 7, 2006; 9 3. Plaintiff’s other Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim; 10 4. Defendants Scribner, Wan, Fulks, McGuiness, Martinez, Dela Rose, James, and Does 11 12 are dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them; 5. 13 14 Defendant Baker shall file a response to the Third Amended Complaint within thirty days from the date of service of this order; and 6. 15 This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process proceedings for Defendant Nguyen. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: 0m8i78 October 15, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
