(PC) Kyle Nargiz v. Sherman et al, No. 1:2019cv01173 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that this case be REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, includinginitiation of service of process, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 04/1/2021.(Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KYLE NARGIZ, 8 9 10 Case No. 1:19-cv-001173-AWI-GSA (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (Doc. No. 14) STUART SHERMAN, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Kyle Nargiz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this 14 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 15 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local 16 Rule 302. 17 On February 1, 2021, the magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, 18 recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Stuart Sherman and Richard 19 Milan on Plaintiff’s claims for adverse conditions of confinement under the Eighth Amendment, 20 and that all other claims be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. 21 Doc. No. 14. Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and 22 recommendations. Id. The fourteen-day time period has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 25 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 26 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 14) entered on February 1, 2021, are 1 1 2 ADOPTED in full; 2. This case now proceeds only against defendants Stuart Sherman and Richard 3 Milan on Plaintiff’s claims for adverse conditions of confinement under the Eighth 4 Amendment; 5 3. 6 7 law claims; 4. 8 9 10 The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state- All other claims are DISMISSED from this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and 5. This case is REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 1, 2021 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 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.
