(PC) Murphy v. Clark et al, No. 1:2019cv00206 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/14/2020. (Sant Agata, 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 JOHN PAUL JONES MURPHY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 K. CLARK, et al., 15 No. 1:19-cv-00206-DAD-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS Defendants. (Doc. No. 19) 16 17 18 Plaintiff John Paul Jones Murphy is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred 20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 21, 200, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 22 complaint (“FAC) and found that he had stated cognizable claims against defendant Amobi for 23 deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment 24 rights and against defendants Sanchez, Rodriguez, Vang, and Aguirre for negligence and for 25 failure to protect in violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. No. 17.) In that 26 screening order, the magistrate judge directed plaintiff to either file a second amended complaint 27 or notify the court in writing of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found in that 28 screening to be cognizable order. (Id. at 18.) On February 2, 2020, plaintiff notified the court of 1 1 his willingness to proceed only on the claims found by the screening order to be cognizable. 2 (Doc. No. 18.) 3 Accordingly, on February 11, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and 4 recommendations recommending that this action proceed only on plaintiff’s claims against 5 defendant Amobi for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of his 6 Eighth Amendment rights and against defendants Sanchez, Rodriguez, Vang, and Aguirre for 7 negligence and for failure to protect in violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. 8 No. 19.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 9 objections were due within fourteen days. (Id. at 2.) No objections were filed and the time to do 10 so has now expired. 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 12 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 13 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, 15 1. 16 17 The February 11, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 19) are adopted in full; 2. This action now proceeds only on plaintiff’s claims against defendant Amobi for 18 deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of plaintiff’s 19 Eighth Amendment rights and against defendants Sanchez, Rodriguez, Vang, and 20 Aguirre for negligence and for failure to protect in violation of plaintiff’s Eighth 21 Amendment rights; 22 3. 23 24 cognizable claim for relief; and 4. 25 26 27 28 All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state a This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 14, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
