(PC)Manson v. Smith et al, No. 1:2007cv00437 - Document 41 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 39 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Defendants' 20 Motion to Dismiss; ORDER DISMISSING Defendant Johnson and Plaintiff's State Claims From This Action signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 1/26/2010. This action now proceeds only on Plaintiffs claims for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Smith and Brar. James Johnston terminated. (Bradley, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Manson v. Smith et al Doc. 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HENRY MANSON III, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. DAVID G. SMITH, M.D., et al., 15 1:07-cv-00437-OWW-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 39.) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 20.) 16 17 18 19 Defendants. ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT JOHNSTON AND PLAINTIFF'S STATE CLAIMS FROM THIS ACTION _____________________________/ Henry Manson III (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 22 On December 8, 2009, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 23 that defendants' motion to dismiss, filed on March 13, 2009, be granted in part and denied in part, 24 dismissing defendant Johnston from this action, and dismissing plaintiff's state claims from this 25 action with prejudice. (Doc. 39.) The parties to this action were granted an opportunity to file 26 objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. More than thirty days have 27 passed, and no objections have been filed. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73- 2 305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 3 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 6 1. 7 8 December 8, 2009, are ADOPTED in full; 2. 9 10 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the allegations against defendant Smith, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust, is DENIED; 4. 13 14 Defendants' motion to dismiss, filed on March 13, 2009, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 11 12 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the allegations against defendant Johnston, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust, is GRANTED; 5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state claims, with prejudice, based 15 on Plaintiff’s failure to file his complaint within six months after his 16 government claim was denied, is GRANTED; 17 6. Defendant Johnston is DISMISSED from this action; 18 7. Plaintiff’s state claims are DISMISSED from this action, with prejudice; 19 8. This action now proceeds only on Plaintiff’s claims for inadequate medical 20 care in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Smith and Brar; 21 and 22 9. 23 The Clerk is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendant Johnston from this action on the Court’s docket. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: January 26, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
