(PC) Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al, No. 1:2009cv00749 - Document 263 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING Defendant Jeffreys' Motion to Dismiss 218 , 262 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/13/2018: Defendant Jeffreys is dismissed from this action; This action shall proceed only a gainst defendants Wu, McGuiness, Enenmoh, and Jimenez for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.(Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL STAFF AT CSATF, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING DEFENDANT JEFFREYS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 218, 262) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds 20 on plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint against defendants Wu, McGuiness, Enenmoh, Jeffreys, 21 and Jimenez for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the 22 Eighth Amendment. 23 On June 19, 2017, defendant Jeffreys filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Eighth 24 Amendment deliberate indifference claim and to dismiss defendant Jeffreys from this action on 25 the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against defendant Jeffreys upon which relief 26 can be granted. (Doc. Nos. 218, 219.) 27 28 On January 31, 2018, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendant Jeffreys’ motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. No. 262.) The 1 1 findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 2 objections thereto must be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 6.) More than fourteen 3 days have passed, and no objections have been filed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 5 de novo review of this case and carefully reviewed the entire file. The court finds that the 6 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 31, 2018 (Doc. No. 262) are 9 10 adopted in full; 2. Defendant Jeffreys’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 218) is granted due to plaintiff’s 11 failure to state a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need 12 against defendant Jeffreys; 13 3. Defendant Jeffreys is dismissed from this action; 14 4. This action shall proceed only against defendants Wu, McGuiness, Enenmoh, and 15 Jimenez for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of 16 the Eighth Amendment; and 17 5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent 18 19 20 with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 13, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.