(PC) Barnett v. Fisher, Jr., No. 1:2017cv01361 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDERED that this action shall proceed solely on the claim in plaintiffs second amended complaint against Warden R. Fisher, Jr. and Does 1 through 4 for deliberate indifference of plaintiffs safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment; ORDERED this matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/15/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DELBERT BARNETT, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-01361-DAD-JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. R. FISHER, JR., et al., (Doc. No. 15) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Delbert Barnett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 26, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened the second amended 21 complaint and issued findings and recommendations that this action should proceed on plaintiff’s 22 claims under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Fisher and Does 1–4, and that all other 23 claims and defendants should be dismissed. (Doc. No. 15.) Those findings and recommendations 24 were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 25 twenty-one (21) days of service. (Id. at 8.) To date, plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the 26 time period for doing so has expired. 27 28 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 1 1 2 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, 3 1. The findings and recommendations issued November 26, 2018 (Doc. No. 15) are 4 adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed solely on the claim in plaintiff’s second amended 5 6 complaint against Warden R. Fisher, Jr. and Does 1–4 for deliberate indifference 7 of plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 8 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and 9 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 10 11 12 13 proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 15, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
