(PC) Brummett v. Sillen et al, No. 1:2006cv01255 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants re 23 , 24 signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 4/27/2010. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That This action proceed on Plaintiffs third amended complaint, filed September 2, 2009, against Defendants S. Kaur and Doe 1 for violation of the Eighth Amendment and negligence; and Defendants McGuinness and Doe 2 are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.(Bradley, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Brummett v. Sillen et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT, JR., 9 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01255-OWW-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS v. SILLEN, et al., (Doc. 23, 24) Defendants. / 14 15 Order 16 Plaintiff Melvin Ray Brummett, Jr. (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On March 18, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein 20 which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the 21 Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the 22 Findings and Recommendations on April 22, 2010. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 24 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 25 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff requests an 26 opportunity to file a fourth amended complaint, contending that he submitted documentation that 27 supports his claims against Defendant head pharmacist Doe 2. Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate 28 Judge initially found Plaintiff’s claims against Doe 2 to be cognizable when screening Plaintiff’s 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 second amended complaint and should not change its findings. The Court may revise any order that 2 adjudicates fewer than all the claims of fewer than all the parties at any time prior to judgment 3 adjudicating all claims and all parties’ rights and responsibilities. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The 4 Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff did not state a cognizable claim against Defendant Doe 2, and 5 the undersigned finds this is supported by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff has had three 6 opportunities to amend, and further leave to amend will not be granted at this time. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 18, 2010, is adopted in full; 9 2. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed September 2, 2009, 10 against Defendants S. Kaur and Doe 1 for violation of the Eighth Amendment and 11 negligence; and 12 13 3. Defendants McGuinness and Doe 2 are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: April 27, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
