(PC) Jordan v. Norris, et al., No. 1:2020cv00467 - Document 41 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 38 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER Dismissing State Law Claims signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 05/08/2021. O. Norris, and State of California terminated.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAMAR JORDAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:20-cv-00467-NONE-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. ORDER DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS O. NORRIS, et al., (Doc. Nos. 37, 38) 15 Defendants. 16 Lamar Jordan (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 18 this civil rights action. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This case is proceeding “on Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Napoles and 20 21 Anunciacion for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 22 Amendment and his claims against defendants Napoles, Norris, Anunciacion, and the State of 23 California for medical negligence.” (Doc. No. 12 at 2.) On March 31, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice to dismiss his state law claims (Doc. No. 37), 24 25 which the assigned magistrate judge construed as a motion. On April 1, 2021, the assigned 26 magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, recommending that: 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his state law claims be granted; 2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Napoles, Norris, Anunciacion, and State of California for medical negligence be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to reflect the dismissal of defendants Norris and [the] State of California on the Court’s docket. (Doc. No. 38 at 2.) The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 7 recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed, and neither party has filed 8 objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 10 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 11 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 1, 2021, (Doc. No. 38), are adopted in full; 14 15 2. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his state law claims is granted; 16 3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Napoles, Norris, Anunciacion, and the State 17 of California for medical negligence are dismissed with prejudice for failure to 18 state a claim; 19 4. State of California on the court’s docket; and 20 21 The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendants Norris and the 5. This case continues to proceed on plaintiff’s claims against defendants Napoles 22 and Anunciacion for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation 23 of the Eighth Amendment. 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 8, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.