(PC) Moore v. City of Shafter Corrections et al, No. 1:2016cv00145 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Allowing Plaintiff to Proceed on her Eighth Amendment Claim Against Defendant Arton, and Dismissing all other Defendants and Claims signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/28/2017. City of Shafter Corrections terminated.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTY V. MOORE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ARDON, 15 16 17 No. 1:16-cv-00145-DAD-SKO Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED ON HER EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT ARDON, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS (Doc. No. 16) 18 19 20 Plaintiff Christy V. Moore is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 21 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 22 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of this court. 23 On January 27, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and ordered 24 plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or a statement of willingness to proceed only on her 25 claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs 26 against defendant Officer Ardon, which claim the magistrate judge found to be cognizable. (Doc. 27 No. 11.) On March 15, 2017, plaintiff filed a response indicating that prison personnel did not 28 deliver the screening order to her until March 7, 2017. (Doc. No. 12.) The court construed 1 1 plaintiff’s notice as a request for an extension of time to respond to the court’s order and granted 2 plaintiff until June 1, 2017, to file an amended complaint or a statement that she wished to 3 proceed only on her cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 13.) The court further indicated that plaintiff’s 4 failure to comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action proceed only 5 on her Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Officer Ardon. (Id.) Plaintiff never filed a 6 response of any kind to the magistrate judge’s orders. 7 On July 5, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 8 recommending that this case proceed only on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against 9 defendant Officer Ardon as found cognizable in the January 27, 2017 screening order. (Doc. No. 10 16.) The findings and recommendation were served that same day and provided plaintiff with 11 twenty-one days in which to file objections. (Id.) To date, plaintiff has not filed objections. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 13 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 14 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 15 Accordingly, 16 1. The July 5, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) are adopted in full; 17 2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Officer Ardon for 18 deliberate indifference of plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 19 Amendment; 20 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and 21 4. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 22 23 24 consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 28, 2017 UNITED STATES 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.