(PC) Anaya v. Campbell, et al, No. 2:2007cv00029 - Document 71 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/5/08 ORDERING that upon reconsideration, the 59 order of the magistrate judge filed 12/5/07 is AFFIRMED. Pltf is GRANTED 30 days to file an amended complaint. The 59 Findings and Recommendations filed 12/5/07 are ADOPTED IN FULL. Dft's 8/23/07 motion to dismiss 32 Pltf's medical practice claim against dft Smith is DENIED. (Engbretson, K.)

Download PDF
(PC) Anaya v. Campbell, et al Doc. 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD ERNEST ANAYA, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, 2:07-cv-0029-GEB-GGH-P vs. ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants. ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 19 On December 5, 2007, the magistrate judge filed an order and findings and 20 recommendations herein, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss filed August 17, 2007, 21 and August 9, 2007, with leave to amend, and recommended that defendants’ August 9, 2007, 22 motion to dismiss plaintiff’s medical practice claim against defendant Smith be denied. The 23 order and findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the 24 parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty 25 days. On December 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, 26 and to the order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss filed August 17, 2007, and August 9, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2007, with leave to amend. The court construes plaintiff’s objections to the order as a request for 2 reconsideration. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 4 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 5 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 6 proper analysis. The court further finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s order 7 was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 72-303(f) (stating that a magistrate 8 judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). 9 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 11 1. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed December 5, 2007, is affirmed; 12 13 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint; 14 15 16 3. The findings and recommendations filed December 5, 2007, are adopted in full; and 4. Defendants’ August23, 2007 motion to dismiss plaintiff’s medical practice August 9, 2007, 17 claim against defendant Smith is denied. 18 Dated: February 5, 2008 19 20 21 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 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.