Joseph Aaron McKissick v. Josie Gastello, No. 2:2021cv01945 - Document 20 (C.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED; 2. Plaintiff's Third Ame nded Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND with respect to: a. Defendant Jose Gastelo, Defendant Garcia, and Defendant Sandavol; and b. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Urbina, except for the allegation that Defendant Urbina did not provide needed cleaning supplies in response to Plaintiff's several requests. 3. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint will PROCEED solely as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Urbina for repeated denial of requested cleaning supplies. (lom)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Joseph Aaron McKissick v. Josie Gastello Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH AARON MCKISSICK, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. JOSIE GASTELO et al., ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendants. 16 17 Case No. 2:21-cv-01945-VAP (MAA) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Third Amended 18 Complaint, the other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of 19 the United States Magistrate Judge. The time for filing objections has expired and 20 no objections have been made. The Court accepts the findings and 21 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 22 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that: 23 1. ACCEPTED; 24 25 The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is 2. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 26 PREJUDICE and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND with respect to: 27 a. 28 Defendant Jose Gastelo, Defendant Garcia, and Defendant Sandavol; and Dockets.Justia.com 1 b. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim 2 against Defendant Urbina, except for the allegation that 3 Defendant Urbina did not provide needed cleaning supplies in 4 response to Plaintiff’s several requests. 5 3. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint will PROCEED solely as to 6 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against 7 Defendant Urbina for repeated denial of requested cleaning supplies. 8 9 10 DATED: January 19, 2022 VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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.
