-JLT (PC) Bakhtiari v. Yates et al, No. 1:2011cv00102 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DISMISSING certain claims and Defendants; Defendants: James A. Yates, J. Fogal and R Shannon terminated; Summons to be issued for Defendants: Widlund, Gonzales, Gallegos, Lopez and Hernandez, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 02/15/2011. (Martin, S)

Download PDF
-JLT (PC) Bakhtiari v. Yates et al Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORTEZA BAKHTIARI, 12 Case No. 1:11-cv-00102 AWI JLT (PC) Plaintiff, 13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. 14 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS JAMES A. YATES, et al., ________________________________/ (Doc. 9) 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff is represented by counsel. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 31, 2011, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Fourteen days have passed, and Plaintiff has not 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court has conducted a de novo review of this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 25 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 26 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 27 /// 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 4 are adopted in full; 2. 5 6 Plaintiff’s inadequate medical care claims against Defendants Gonzales and Gallegos regarding the denial of prescription medication are DISMISSED; 3. 7 8 The findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge filed January 31, 2011, Plaintiff’s equal protection claims against Defendants Widlund, Gonzales, Gallegos, Lopez, and Hernandez are DISMISSED; 4. 9 Plaintiff’s conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 against Defendants Widlund, Gonzales, Gallegos, and Lopez are DISMISSED; 10 5. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Yates, Fogal, and Shannon are DISMISSED; 11 6. This action shall proceed on the following claims: (1) excessive force under the 12 Eighth Amendment against Defendants Widlund, Gonzales, Gallegos, and Lopez; (2) 13 inadequate medical care (prescription medication) under the Eighth Amendment 14 against Defendants Widlund and Hernandez; (3) inadequate medical care (post- 15 altercation treatment) under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Widlund, 16 Lopez, Gonzales, Gallegos, and Hernandez; and (4) retaliation under the First 17 Amendment against Defendant Gonzales; and 18 7. 19 The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue summons for Defendants Widlund, Gonzales, Gallegos, Lopez, and Hernandez. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: 0m8i78 February 15, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.