(PC) Pickard v. Spearman et al, No. 1:2018cv00450 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for Action to Proceed on Eighth Amendment Claim Against Dr. Htay and C/Os Doe #1, #2, and #3, Dismissing all other Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/11/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL PICKARD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 M. SPEARMAN, Jr., et al., 15 Case No. 1:18-cv-00450-AWI-JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION TO PROCEED ON EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST DR. HTAY AND C/Os DOE #1, #2, AND #3, DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS Defendants. (Docs. 11, 12) 16 17 Plaintiff, Michael Pickard, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 19 20 this in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The Magistrate Judge issued the First Screening Order (Doc. 11) finding that Plaintiff 21 stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical need in violation of the 22 Eighth Amendment against Dr. Htay and C/Os Doe #1, #2, and #3 upon which he should be 23 allowed to proceed. That order granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to potentially 24 make more of his claims cognizable, or to file a notice that he did not desire to do so. (Id.) The 25 26 order further indicated that if Plaintiff did not respond, the Court would recommend that the action only proceed on the claims found cognizable. (Id.) Plaintiff did not respond.1 27 28 1 The First Screening Order was returned as undeliverable on November 27, 2018, with a notation that Plaintiff was 1 1 On December 19, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 2 Plaintiff proceed in this action on his Eighth Amendment Claims found cognizable in the First 3 Screening Order (Doc. 11) against Dr. Dr. Htay and C/Os Doe #1, #2, and #3 and that all other 4 claims and defendants be dismissed. The Findings and Recommendation was served that same 5 date and allowed for filing of objections within twenty-one days. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed any 6 objections.2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 7 8 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 9 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on December 19, 2018, (Doc. 12), is adopted in full; 12 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to his serious 13 14 medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Dr. Htay and C/Os Doe 15 #1, #2, and #3; 3. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed with prejudice from this action; and 16 4. The action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with 17 this order. 18 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 11, 2019 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 no longer in custody. 2 Though Plaintiff has not updated his address, the Findings and Recommendations were not returned as undeliverable. 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.