(PC) Brown v. Chothia et al, No. 1:2019cv00352 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendant H.B. Anglea signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/6/2019. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUGENE C. BROWN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-00352-DAD-EPG v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS C. CHOTHIA, et al., (Doc. No. 15) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Eugene C. Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States 20 District Court for the Eastern District of California. On July 12, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations 21 22 recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be allowed to proceed against defendants C. Chothia, A. 23 Shaw, L. Kempe, C. Jukes, M. Gilmore, J. Walker, M. Crutchfield, K.Z. Allen, D. Artis, and C. 24 Patillo for deliberate indifference to serious risk of harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 25 and against defendants C. Jukes, M. Londono, and M. Crutchfield for retaliation in violation of 26 the First Amendment. (Doc. No. 15 at 2.) In addition, the magistrate judge recommended that all 27 other claims and defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id.) Plaintiff was provided 28 ///// 1 1 an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen days. 2 Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time to do so has passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 4 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 6 proper analysis. 7 Accordingly: 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on July 12, 8 2019 (Doc. No. 15) are adopted in full; 9 2. This action now proceeds against defendants C. Chothia, A. Shaw, L. Kempe, C. 10 11 Jukes, M. Gilmore, J. Walker, M. Crutchfield, K.Z. Allen, D. Artis, and C. Patillo 12 for deliberate indifference to serious risk of harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against defendants C. Jukes, M. Londono, and M. Crutchfield for 13 retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 14 3. All remaining claims, including all claims against defendant H. B. Anglea, are 15 dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and 16 4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 6, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.