(PC) Gil v. Yates et al, No. 1:2009cv00552 - Document 42 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 36 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/7/2011. This Action Proceed on 31 Second Amended Complaint Against Defendant Amadi; All Other Claims Against All Other Defendants Are DISMISSED Without Prejudice; Defendants F. Igbinosa, Salazar, Kim, Ortiz, Neubarth, Kushner, Seifert, Diep, Birring, Alvarez, Henderson, Herrera, Manasred, Griffith, Medina, Ryan, Davis, Coleman, Malloy, Johnson, Stringer, Tucker, James A. Yates, and Vilaysane are DISMISSED; and Plaintiffs Request For Injunctive Relief is DENIED As Moot.(Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Gil v. Yates et al Doc. 42 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 FRANCISCO GIL, 9 10 11 CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00552-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS v. JAMES A. YATES, et al., 12 (DOC. 36) Defendants. 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Francisco Gil (“plaintiff”) is a former California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second 17 amended complaint, filed March 18, 2010. Doc. 31. 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 October 12, 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 did not file a timely 22 Objection to the Findings and Recommendations. 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. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 12, 2010, is adopted in full; 28 2. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed March 18, 2010, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 against Defendant Amadi for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in 2 violation of the Eighth Amendment and for the state law claim of negligence; 3 3. 4 5 All of Plaintiff’s other claims against all other Defendants are dismissed without prejudice for violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a); 4. Defendants F. Igbinosa, Salazar, Kim, Ortiz, Neubarth, Kushner,Seifert, Diep, 6 Birring, Alvarez, Henderson, Herrera, Manasred, Griffith, Medina, Ryan, Davis, 7 Coleman, Malloy, Johnson, Stringer, Tucker, James A. Yates, and Vilaysane are 8 dismissed from this action; and 9 10 11 12 5. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 January 7, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
