(PC) Sullivan v. Biter et al, No. 1:2012cv01662 - Document 121 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 110 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 101 Motion to Dismiss as a Sanction signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/6/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN, 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:12-cv-1662-AWI-EPG ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF Nos. 101, 110) CHEN, et al., Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff, Michael J. Sullivan (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 16 forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now 17 proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed on February 13, 2015, on Plaintiff’s 18 Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against 19 Defendants Chen, Patel, and Marchiano.1 (ECF No. 57.) The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 22 recommendations recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as a Sanction, (ECF 23 101), be denied. (ECF No. 110). The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to 24 the findings and recommendations within fourteen days. The fourteen-day period has expired 25 and the parties have not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 27 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 28 1 Defendant Marchiano has not been located for service, and has not yet appeared in this case. 1 1 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 2 analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5 6 December 12, 2017 (ECF No. 110) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as a Sanction (ECF No. 101) is DENIED. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 6, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 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.