(PC) Hendrix v. Arce, No. 1:2020cv01307 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 25 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Defendant Santoro and the Claims Against Her signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/11/2021. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Hendrix v. Arce Doc. 30 Case 1:20-cv-01307-AWI-JLT Document 30 Filed 08/11/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN HENDRIX, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:20-cv-01307-AWI-JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. FOULK, et al., (Doc. No. 25) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Benjamin Hendrix is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 4, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge filed a screening order, finding that 21 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint states a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference against 22 Defendant Arce but not Defendant Santoro. Doc. No. 20. The magistrate judge directed Plaintiff 23 to file a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading or to notify the court of 24 his desire to proceed only on the claim found cognizable. Id. at 6-7. On June 24, 2021, Plaintiff 25 filed a notice that he “wishes to. . . proceed only on his deliberate indifference claim against . . . 26 Arce and . . . dismiss . . . Santoro.” Doc. No. 22. 27 28 Therefore, on June 24, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that Defendant Santoro be dismissed. Doc. No. 25. The findings and Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-01307-AWI-JLT Document 30 Filed 08/11/21 Page 2 of 2 1 recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided him 14 days to file objections thereto. 2 Id. at 1-2. 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)(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, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 8 The findings and recommendations issued on June 24, 2021 (Doc. No. 25) are ADOPTED in full; 9 2. Defendant Santoro and the claims against her are DISMISSED; 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to rename this case “Hendrix v. Arce”; and, 11 4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 11, 2021 SENIOR 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.