(PC) McDowell v. Rivera et al, No. 1:2013cv01797 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/3/14. Defendants H. Patel and R. Rivera Dismissed. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JERRY MCDOWELL, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 Case No. 1:13-cv-01797-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS v. R. RIVERA, et al., 16 ECF NO. 15 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Jerry McDowell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 6, 2013. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 21 Rule 302. 22 On March 28, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendations 23 recommending certain claims and Defendants be dismissed from this action. (ECF No. 15.) The 24 fourteen day deadline to file an objection has passed without a response from Plaintiff. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 26 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 28 1 1 analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 28 2014, are adopted in full; 4 2. Plaintiff shall proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants 5 Sandoval, Garza, Fernandez, Guzman, Sanchez, and Acolla and First Amendment 6 claim against Defendants Acolla and Fernandez; 7 3. dismissed; and 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Rivera and Patel are 4. Defendants Rivera and Patel are dismissed from the action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill June 3, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 5. 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.