(PC) Klahn v. Wasco State Prison et al, No. 1:2016cv00342 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/17/2018. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL P. KLAHN, Sr., 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:16-cv-00342-DAD-JLT v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WASCO STATE PRISON, et al., (Doc. Nos. 17, 19) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Daniel P. Klahn, Sr., is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 18 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred 19 to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 15, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened the second amended 21 complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff be allowed to 22 proceed on his claim against defendant R. Seitz, D.D.S. for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s 23 serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that the remainder of plaintiff’s 24 claims be dismissed. (Doc. No. 19.) The findings and recommendation were served on plaintiff 25 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days after 26 service. (Id. at 17.) To date, plaintiff has filed no objections to the findings and 27 recommendations, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 7 The findings and recommendations issued March 15, 2018 (Doc. No. 19) are adopted in full; 2. This action for damages shall proceed on the claim in plaintiff’s second amended 8 complaint (Doc. No. 17) against defendant R. Seitz, D.D.S. for deliberate 9 indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 10 Amendment; 11 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and 12 4. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 13 14 15 16 proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 17, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2