(PC) Shabazz v. Beard, et al., No. 1:2015cv00881 - Document 44 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/4/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMIR SHABAZZ, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:15-cv-00881-DAD-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS Defendants. (Doc. No. 30) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Amir Shabazz, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, originally filed this civil 20 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 16, 2014. (Doc. No. 1.) The 21 action is currently proceeding on plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which 22 plaintiff filed on October 6, 2016. (Doc. No. 26.) 23 On February 23, 2017, this court permitted plaintiff to “proceed on his Eighth Amendment 24 claim in his [SAC],” but noted that claim “may not be brought against certain defendants in their 25 supervisorial capacities.” (Doc. No. 29.) On March 7, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge found 26 service of the SAC appropriate on a subset of the named defendants (Doc. No. 31) and issued 27 findings and recommendations recommending the other named defendants who appeared to be 28 sued in a purely supervisorial capacity be dismissed from this action. (Doc. No. 30.) 1 1 The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff with instructions that any 2 objections thereto must be filed within 30 days. Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the 3 deadline for doing so has lapsed. 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 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the 6 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly: 8 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 30), are adopted in full; and 9 2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Edmund G. Brown, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jeffrey 10 A. Beard, and Matthew Cate are dismissed from the case. The Clerk of the Court is 11 directed to terminate these parties as defendants in this action. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 4, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.