(PC) Swearington v. Wedell, et al, No. 2:2006cv01407 - Document 89 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 87 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/24/2010. The 55 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendants Duc, Wedell, and Duru is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is DENIED with respect to plaintiff's claims arising from his visits with Drs. Duc and Duru but GRANTED in all other respects. Thereby resulting in defendant Wedell being DISMISSED from this action. (Marciel, M)
Download PDF
(PC) Swearington v. Wedell, et al Doc. 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DWAYNE SWEARINGTON, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. DR. WEDELL, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. CIV S-06-1407 GEB KJM P ORDER / Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On August 11, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 22 Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 11, 2010, are adopted in full; 3 2. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Duc, Wedell and Duru 4 5 6 7 8 9 (Docket No. 55) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: A. Denied with respect to plaintiff’s claim arising out of his visit with Dr. Duc on March 23, 2004; B. Denied with respect to plaintiff’s claim arising out of his visit with Dr. Duru on December 31, 2004; and C. Granted in all other respects thereby resulting in defendant Wedell 10 being dismissed from this action. 11 Dated: September 24, 2010 12 13 14 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2