(PC) Escobar v. Smith et al, No. 2:2012cv00773 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/13/12 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed November 7, 2012, are adopted infull; Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 11 is denied; Defendants' motion to dismi ss plaintiff's claim that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need in refusing to treat his condition surgically 17 is granted on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to that claim; and This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Becknal, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Escobar v. Smith et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALFREDO ESCOBAR, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 vs. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. 2:12-cv-0773 GEB DAD P 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 Rule 302. 19 On November 7, 2012, 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff 22 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 7, 2012, are adopted in 3 full; 4 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 11) is denied; 5 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim that the defendants were 6 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need in refusing to treat his condition surgically 7 (Dkt. No. 17) is granted on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies 8 with respect to that claim; and 9 10 4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Dated: December 13, 2012 11 12 13 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. Senior United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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.
