-GSA (PC) Avery v. Director of CDCR, et al., No. 1:2007cv01175 - Document 77 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 75 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER for this Action to Proceed on the Second Amended Complaint against Defendant Amaya for Retaliation, Defendant Gonzales for Inadequate Medical Care and Failure to Protect, Defendant Bascom for Ex cessive Force, and on Plaintiff's Related State Tort Claims, and Dismissing all Other Claims and Defendants for Failure to State a Claim signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 06/08/2011. P. Kaur, E. Lu, Jane McGraw, Kathy Mendoza-Powers, S. K. Pennywell, J. Ramos, B.G. Summers, S. Suryadevara, E Alfaro and Director of CDCR terminated from Action. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-GSA (PC) Avery v. Director of CDCR, et al. Doc. 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHANNON L. AVERY, SR., 1:07-cv-01175-OWW-GSA-PC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 75.) 12 v. 13 CDCR DIRECTOR, et al., ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ON THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT AMAYA FOR RETALIATION, DEFENDANT GONZALES FOR INADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE AND FAILURE TO PROTECT, DEFENDANT BASCOM FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND ON PLAINTIFF’S RELATED STATE TORT CLAIMS, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Doc. 69.) 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 / 20 21 Shannon L. Avery. Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 22 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 23 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On April 14, 2011, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that this 25 action proceed on the Second Amended Complaint against defendant Amaya for retaliation, 26 defendant Gonzales for inadequate medical care and failure to protect, defendant Bascom for 27 excessive force, and on Plaintiff's related state tort claims, and that all other claims be dismissed for 28 failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 recommendations within thirty days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise 2 responded to the findings and recommendations. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 4 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 7 1. 8 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 14, 2011, are adopted in full; 9 2. This action now proceeds with the Second Amended Complaint filed on July 20, 10 2010, on the claims found cognizable by the Court against defendant C/O J. Amaya 11 for retaliation under the First Amendment; against defendant C/O G. Gonzales for 12 inadequate medical care and for failure to protect Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth 13 Amendment; against defendant C/O Bascom for use of excessive force in violation 14 of the Eighth Amendment, assault, and battery; and on Plaintiff’s related state tort 15 claims; 16 3. This action now proceeds for money damages only as relief; 17 4. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action based on 18 Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; 19 5. Plaintiff's claims for supervisory liability, conspiracy, verbal harassment, failure to 20 intercede, due process, mayhem, for staring at Plaintiff, and for withholding water 21 from Plaintiff, are dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a 22 claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; 23 6. Defendants Hubbard, Mendoza-Powers, Ndoh, Pennywell, Lu, Kaur, Suryadevara, 24 Alfaro, McGraw, Ramos, Weinstein, and Hill are dismissed from this action based 25 on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against 26 them under § 1983; and 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2 7. The Clerk is directed to reflect on the Court's docket: (1) the dismissal of defendants Director of CDCR, Ramos, Alfaro, McGraw, 3 Pennywell, Summers, Mendoza-Powers, Kaur, Suryadevara, and Lu from this 4 action; and 5 (2) the addition of defendant Bascom to this action. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: June 8, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
