(PC) Guerra v. Kern County Sheriff's Department et al, No. 1:2013cv01077 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 17 Regarding Dismissal of Claims Against Defendants in their Official Capacities, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/17/14. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 JOAQUIN GUERRA, 10 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:13-cv-01077-AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES (ECF No. 17) 15 16 Plaintiff Joaquin Guerra (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this 18 action while a pre-trial detainee at the Kern County Jail. 19 On October 10, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 20 this action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on July 7, 2014, against 21 Defendants Sweeney, Feely and Jane Doe #1 in their individual capacities for deliberate 22 indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and that 23 Plaintiff’s official capacity claims be dismissed from this action. The Findings and 24 Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be 25 filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 17.) On October 28, 2014, the Magistrate Judge 26 granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file any objections. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff 27 filed untimely objections on December 8, 2014. (ECF No. 22.) 28 1 1 In his objections, Plaintiff asserts that he has stated a claim for deliberate indifference to 2 serious medical needs and that liability should be imposed against public employees. Plaintiff’s 3 objections do not identify any error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. 4 Insofar as Plaintiff may believe that his claims have been dismissed, this belief is incorrect. The 5 Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint move forward on his deliberate 6 indifference claim against Defendants in their individual capacities. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 8 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 9 untimely objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the 10 record and by proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on October 10, 2014, are adopted in 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on July 7, 13 14 full; 15 2014, against Defendants Sweeney, Feely and Jane Doe #1 in their individual capacities for 16 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; 17 18 19 20 3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed from this action; and 4. This action shall be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: December 17, 2014 24 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
