(PC) Burrell v. Lozovoy et al, No. 1:2016cv01118 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 26 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Defendants, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/20/18. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 ANGEE BURRELL, Case No. 1:16-cv-01118-SAB (PC) 9 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 [ECF No. 26] RUSLAN LOZOVOY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 Plaintiff Angee Burrell is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 16 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 17 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On December 7, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 19 recommendations recommending that this action should proceed on Plaintiff’s claim for 20 deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 21 Defendants Lozovoy and Sao, and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against 22 Defendant Sao. (ECF No. 26.) The magistrate judge further recommended that all other 23 defendants be dismissed for the failure to state a claim against them upon which relief may be 24 granted. (Id.) Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and 25 recommendations. No objections were filed. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 27 undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. The undersigned concludes the 28 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. are adopted in full; 3 4 The findings and recommendations issued on December 7, 2017 (ECF No. 26), 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to a 5 serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 6 Lozovoy and Sao, and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against 7 Defendant Sao; 8 3. state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and 9 10 All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for the failure to 4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: April 20, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2