(PC) Carr v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 1:2017cv01769 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Certain Defendants Due to Eleventh Amendment Immunity 11 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/6/2018: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Prison Industry Authority are dismissed, based on Eleventh Amendment immunity; and This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLAUDE CARR, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-01769-DAD-SAB Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS DUE TO ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY (Doc. No. 11) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Claude Carr is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of this court. 21 On May 7, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Pruitt for deliberate 23 indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that the remaining defendants, the 24 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Prison Industry Authority, be 25 dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. (Doc. No. 11.) Those findings and 26 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 27 to be filed within thirty days after service. (Id. at 5.) That deadline has passed, and no objections 28 have been filed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 2 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by 4 proper analysis. 5 Accordingly: 6 1. 7 8 adopted in full; 2. 9 10 3. 15 The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Prison Industry Authority are dismissed, based on Eleventh Amendment immunity; and 4. 13 14 This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Pruitt for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 11 12 The findings and recommendations issued on May 7, 2018 (Doc. No. 11) are This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 6, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
