(PC) McKinney v. CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 1:2009cv00726 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 20 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 9/16/2010. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
(PC) McKinney v. CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GREGORY MCKINNEY, 10 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00726-OWW-SKO PC Plaintiff, 11 ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS AND v. (Doc. 20) 12 CA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 Plaintiff Gregory McKinney (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 17 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On August 13, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations which 19 recommended the dismissal of certain claims from Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc. #20.) 20 The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that 21 any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the 22 date on which the Findings and Recommendations were served. Plaintiff has not filed objections 23 to the Findings and Recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 305, this Court 25 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 26 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 /// 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 2 1. The August 13, 2010 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full; 3 2. Plaintiff’s due process claims and equal protection claims are DISMISSED for failure 4 5 to state a claim; 3. 6 7 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Hubbard and Knowles are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim; and 4. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hedgpeth, 8 Harrington, Castro, Kays, and Soto for deliberate indifference toward a serious risk 9 to Plaintiff’s health in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: September 16, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2