(PC) Patterson v. HIP-C Committee, et al., No. 1:2019cv01401 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/6/2021. (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 VESTER L. PATTERSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-01401-NONE-JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. JOHN DOES 1-18, et al, (Doc. No. 12) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Vester L. Patterson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 16, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 determining that plaintiff’s first amended complaint states a cognizable claim of deliberate 22 indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs under the Eighth Amendment by the John Doe 23 defendants. (Doc. No. 12.) The magistrate judge found that all remaining claims were not 24 cognizable. (Id.) In response to the court’s order, plaintiff filed a notice indicating his election 25 not to amend the complaint and instead to proceed only on the cognizable claim. (Doc. 14.) 26 On March 3, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations to 27 allow the case to proceed on the Eight Amendment claim against John Does 1–18 and dismiss the 28 non-cognizable claims. (Doc. 21.) The order advised the parties that they could file written 1 objections with the court within fourteen days of being served with the findings and 2 recommendations. (Id. at 7). Over fourteen days have passed, and no party has filed objections. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 5 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 7 Accordingly, 1. 8 9 adopted in full. 2. 10 11 The findings and recommendations issued on March 3, 2021 (Doc. No. 12) are The claims in plaintiff’s complaint are dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against John Does 1–18. 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 6, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.