(PC) Womack v. Bakewell et al, No. 2:2010cv02778 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 35 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 01/25/12 ORDERING that defendants' 19 Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is DENIED; defendants' 19 Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Dr. Duc and Nurse Bakewell is DENIED; b. defendants' motio n to dismiss plaintiff's conspiracy claim against defendants Dr. Duc, Nurse Bakewell, and Dr. Nangalama is GRANTED; c. defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs claims in connection with his administrative appeals is GRANTED insofar as his c laims are solely based on defendants' review and denial of his administrative appeals. Defendants Nurse Bakewell, Dr. Bal, CEO Deems, Dr. Duc, Dr. Nangalama, and Warden Walker are directed to file an answer in response to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims within 30 days. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
(PC) Womack v. Bakewell et al Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-10-2778 GEB DAD P vs. C. BAKEWELL et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 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 Rule 302. 19 On December 15, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither 22 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 25 ORDERED that: 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 15, 2011, are adopted in full; 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. No. 19) is denied; 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. No. 19) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 7 a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim 8 against defendants Dr. Duc and Nurse Bakewell is denied; 9 b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s conspiracy claim against 10 defendants Dr. Duc, Nurse Bakewell, and Dr. Nangalama is granted; 11 c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims in connection with his 12 administrative appeals is granted insofar as his claims are solely based on 13 defendants’ review and denial of his administrative appeals; and 14 4. Defendants Nurse Bakewell, Dr. Bal, CEO Deems, Dr. Duc, Dr. Nangalama, 15 and Warden Walker are directed to file an answer in response to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 16 claims within thirty days. 17 Dated: January 25, 2012 18 19 20 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 21 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.