(PC) Gaines v. Brown et al, No. 1:2016cv01666 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Striking Objections to Findings and Recommendations as Duplicative signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 03/16/2018. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARY LEE GAINES, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 BROWN, et al., 14 Case No. 1:16-cv-01666-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS DUPLICATIVE (ECF No. 31) Defendants. 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff Mary Lee Gaines (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 9, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and issued 19 findings and recommendations that it stated cognizable claims for deliberate indifference to 20 medical needs against Defendant Mirelez for not giving Plaintiff her breathing treatment despite 21 Plaintiff’s need for the treatment on February 11, 2014, and against Defendant Hoehing for not 22 assisting Plaintiff when Defendant came to Plaintiff’s cell and Plaintiff was having an asthma 23 attack on February 11, 2014, but failed to state any other claims. (ECF No. 20.) Following the 24 filing of Plaintiff’s objections on March 5, 2018, (ECF No. 28), the assigned District Judge issued 25 an order adopting the findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 29). 26 On March 14, 2018, Plaintiff again filed objections to the November 9, 2017 findings and 27 recommendations. (ECF No. 31.) It appears that Plaintiff mailed two copies of her objections on 28 the same date, and one copy was not received until March 14. As these objections are duplicative 1 1 of the objections previously considered by the District Judge in his order adopting the findings 2 and recommendations, Plaintiff’s objections filed on March 14, 2018, (ECF No. 31), are 3 HEREBY STRICKEN as duplicative. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara March 16, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 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.