(PC) Dancy v. Scribner, et al, No. 1:2007cv00716 - Document 79 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 76 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; and ORDER GRANTING 72 Defendant Gage's Motion to Dismiss, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 2/2/2011. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Dancy v. Scribner, et al Doc. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMUEL DANCY, 12 13 Case No. 1:07-cv-00716 OWW JLT (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS vs. (Doc. 72, 76) 14 15 A.K. SCRIBNER, et al., Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in 19 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. Pending before the Court is Defendant 20 Gage’s motion to dismiss. 21 On December 28, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed Amended Findings and Recommendations 22 recommending that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Gage be granted because the facts alleged 23 in the compliant, when coupled with Plaintiff’s admission that Gage was not a medical doctor, 24 demonstrated that Gage did not commit a constitutional violation. (Doc. 76) The Magistrate Judge 25 granted Plaintiff 30 days within which to file his objections to the Amended Findings and 26 Recommendations. Id. 27 On February 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed his objections to the Amended Findings and 28 Recommendations. (Doc. 78.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant Gage was contracted with the State of 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 California to provide medical care to inmates. Id. at 1. However, Plaintiff does not explain how he 2 believes that this contractual relationship impacts the Court’s analysis. Plaintiff argues also that 3 Defendant Gage “played a part in the delay in Plaintiff receiving the needed corrective surgery” (Id.) but 4 fails to identify any facts in addition to those recited in his complaint, which have been fully considered 5 by the Magistrate Judge. Finally, Plaintiff indicates that the Amended Findings and Recommendations 6 are in error because the Court is unaware “of the full capacity of which FNP Anitra Gage was performing 7 duties as a health care provider to inmates such as the Plaintiff in this suit.” Id. However, Plaintiff does 8 not explain what this “full capacity” is or how the services provided to other inmates are pertinent to his 9 lawsuit. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United 11 School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 12 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and recommendation are 13 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. 16 17 18 The amended findings and recommendations filed December 28, 2010, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. The matter is DISMISSED as to Defendant Gage.IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 2, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
