(PC) Jackson v. Rallos et al, No. 2:2009cv03234 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/15/2010 ORDERING the clerk to assign a district judge to this case; and the 7/29/10 hearing on dfts' motion to dismiss is VACATED; and RECOMMENDING that dfts' 13 motion to dismiss be granted. Assigned and Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Jackson v. Rallos et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KEVIN JACKSON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 Case No. 2:09-cv-3234 KJN P vs. TESSIE RALLOS, M.D., et al., 14 ORDER AND Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 25, 2010, defendants Rallos, Traquina, Rohrer and 18 Mahon-Howe filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for professional medical negligence 19 based on the grounds that plaintiff failed to plead compliance with the California Claims Act and 20 to comply with the statute of limitations. Defendants’ motion was noticed for hearing July 29, 21 2010. 22 On July 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to defendants’ 23 motion. Plaintiff does not oppose the dismissal of the second count for professional (medical) 24 negligence, and agrees to proceed solely on count one, alleged cruel and unusual punishment 25 based on denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Good cause appearing, defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The July 29, 2010 hearing will be vacated. 3 On November 30, 2009, plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned 4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Defendants have not filed the form indicating consent or refusal 5 to consent. Thus, the court will direct the Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to this case. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 8 2. The July 29, 2010 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss is vacated. 9 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ June 25, 2010 motion to 10 dismiss be granted. This action shall proceed solely on count one. (Compl. at 7-8.) 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 13 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 16 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 17 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 18 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 DATED: July 15, 2010 20 21 22 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 jack3234.mtd 25 26 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.
