(PC) Norwood v Nanganama, et al.,, No. 2:2009cv02929 - Document 111 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/8/2014 ADOPTING IN FULL, except as noted in this order, 110 Findings and Recommendations; DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's conspiracy claim alleged in the 108 Third Amended Complaint; DISMI SSING WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's renewed Eighth Amendment Claims against Defendants Nanganama and Byers; ORDERING Defendant Kaur to file a response, within thirty (30) days, to the Eighth Amendment claim raised in the 108 Third Amended Complaint. (Michel, G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Norwood v Nanganama, et al., Doc. 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY NORWOOD, 12 No. 2:09-cv-2929 LKK AC P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 T. BYERS, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 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 November 22, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party has 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court has reviewed the file and, with one exception, finds the findings and 25 recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. The court 26 agrees with the magistrate judge’s finding that plaintiff has failed to allege any facts which 27 indicate any agreement between defendant NP Kaur and any other medical personnel and that this 28 defect cannot be cured by amendment, see Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 110) at 4, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and on that basis dismisses the conspiracy allegations without leave to amend. The court declines 2 to adopt the magistrate judge’s alternative rationale that the conspiracy claim also fails because 3 two other named defendants with whom defendant NP Kaur allegedly conspired have been 4 dismissed from this lawsuit. See id. at 4:13-15. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Except as noted in this order, the findings and recommendations filed November 22, 7 2013, are adopted in full; 8 9 2. Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim alleged in the third amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 10 3. Plaintiff’s renewed Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Nanganama and 11 Byers are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the previous orders of this court, ECF Nos. 47, 12 107; 13 14 15 4. Within thirty days of this order, defendant Kaur shall file a response to the Eighth Amendment claim raised in plaintiff’s third amended complaint. DATED: January 8, 2014. 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.
