(PC) Blair v. Mendivil, No. 1:2017cv01015 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations, Allowing Action to Proceed on Plaintiff's Claim of Deliberate Indifference Against Certain Individuals and Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/20/18. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERRY C. BLAIR, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. D. MENDIVIL, et al., Defendants. No. 1:17-cv-01015-DAD-SAB ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ALLOWING ACTION TO PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM OF DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE AGAINST CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 16 (Doc. No. 8) 17 18 Plaintiff Perry C. Blair (“plaintiff”) is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 1, 2017, in Perry C. Blair v. CDCR, et.al, case number 1:14-cv-01156-LJO- 22 SAB (PC), the court granted plaintiff’s request to sever and file a new action regarding the new 23 allegations set forth in his fourth amended complaint filed in that action. Accordingly, the Clerk 24 of Court opened the instant prisoner civil rights action and filed plaintiff’s fourth amended 25 complaint as the operative complaint in this action. In the August 1, 2017 order, the court 26 expressed no opinion as to the merits of the claims presented in plaintiff’s complaint. 27 On November 22, 2017, the magistrate judge assigned to this action issued findings and 28 recommendations recommending that plaintiff be allowed to proceed in this action on his claim 1 1 for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against defendants D. Mendivil and John 2 Does 1, 2, and 3, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action. (Doc. 3 No. 8.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 4 objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on 5 December 13, 2017. However, plaintiff’s objections do not provide a legal basis upon which to 6 question the analysis set forth in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 7 9.) 8 9 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. adopted in full; 13 14 2. 3. 4. 21 This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for initiation of service of process and further proceedings. 19 20 All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 17 18 This action shall proceed solely on plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against defendants D. Mendivil and John Does 1, 2, and 3; 15 16 The findings and recommendations dated November 22, 2017 (Doc. No. 8) are IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 20, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.