(PC) Vlasich v. Nareddy et al, No. 1:2013cv00326 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER for this Action to Proceed only Against Defendants Dr. Beregovskaya and Dr. Nareddy on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Medical Claims; ORDER Dismissing all other Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/03/2015. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN VLASICH, 12 13 14 1:13-cv-00326-LJO-GSA-PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 21.) vs. ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS DR. BEREGOVSKAYA AND DR. NAREDDY ON PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH AMENDMENT MEDICAL CLAIMS DR. NAREDDY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ORDER DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 18 19 20 Steven Vlasich (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case now proceeds on the Second 22 Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on August 18, 2014. (ECF No. 17.) The matter was 23 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 24 Rule 302. 25 On October 27, 2015, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, 26 recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Dr. Beregovskaya and Dr. 27 Nareddy on Plaintiff=s medical claims, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed 28 from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff was 1 1 provided an opportunity to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations within twenty 2 days. 3 Recommendations. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the Findings and 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 5 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 6 the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 7 analysis. 8 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 9 1. 10 11 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on October 27, 2015, are ADOPTED in full; 2. This action now proceeds with Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed on 12 August 18, 2014, against defendants Dr. Beregovskaya and Dr. Nareddy, on 13 Plaintiff=s medical claims; 14 3. All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action; 15 4. Defendants Dr. C. McCabe, Dr. J. Wong, Dr. Williams, Nurse Kayun, and 16 Nurse B. Morean are DISMISSED from this action with prejudice based on 17 Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against 18 them; and 19 5. 20 The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendants McCabe, Wong, Williams, Kayun, and Morean from this action on the Court's docket. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill December 3, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.