(PC) Torres v. Patel et al, No. 1:2018cv00188 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants 17 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/3/2019: This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, including initiation of service of process. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MIGUEL TORRES., 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. ISMAIL PATEL, et.al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-00188-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 17) 18 Plaintiff Miguel Torres is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 5, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 22 finding that Plaintiff’s amended complaint states a cognizable claim against Defendants Patel, Ulit, 23 Mansrah, Spaeth and Serda, in their individual capacities, for deliberate indifference in violation of the 24 Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 17.) The Magistrate Judge further recommending dismissing all other 25 claims and defendants for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id. at 1.) Those 26 findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto 27 were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id. at 2.) That deadline has passed, and no objections have been 28 filed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 2 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the 3 Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. 6 7 The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 5, 2018, (Doc. No. 17) are adopted in full; 2. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Patel, 8 Ulit, Mansrah, Spaeth and Serda, in their individual capacities, for deliberate indifference in violation 9 of the Eighth Amendment; 10 11 12 13 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for the failure to state a cognizable claim; and 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, including initiation of service of process. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ January 3, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
