(PC)Spencer v. Sherman, No. 1:2017cv00479 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER for This Action to Proceed Only Against Defendant Stuart Sherman, on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Conditions of Confinement Claim, and Dismissing All Other Claims, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/11/18. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD B. SPENCER, 12 13 Plaintiff, vs. 14 STUART SHERMAN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 1:17-cv-00479-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 13.) ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT STUART SHERMAN, ON PLAINTIFF=S EIGHTH AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CLAIM, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS 18 19 Edward B. Spencer (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 21 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On April 25, 2018, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that 23 this action proceed only against defendant Stuart Sherman on Plaintiff’s claim for adverse 24 conditions of confinement under the Eighth Amendment, and that all remaining claims be 25 dismissed from this action. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file 26 objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen days. 27 deadline has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the 28 findings and recommendations. 1 The fourteen-day 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 6 1. 7 8 The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 25, 2018, are ADOPTED in full; 2. This action now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on April 4, 2017, against defendant Stuart Sherman on Plaintiff’s claim for adverse conditions of 9 10 confinement under the Eighth Amendment; 11 3. All remaining claims are DISMISSED from this action; 12 4. Plaintiff’s state law claims for violation of health and sanitation standards and 13 violation of the California Constitution are DISMISSED from this action based 14 on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and 15 16 5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 11, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
