(PC) Elliot v. Readdy et al, No. 2:2010cv02980 - Document 153 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/25/14 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 5/9/14 150 are ADOPTED in full; Defendant Dr. Reddy's Motion for Summary Judgment 119 is GRANTED in full. Defendant Dr. Beck& #039;s Motion for Summary Judgment 106 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant Dr. Beck's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's state law claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, is GRANTED. Defendant Dr. Beck's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claims of deliberate indiference to serios medical needs, and medical negligence, is DENIED. This Action proceeds on Plaintiff's claims against Dr. Beck for deliberate indiference to serious medical needs, and medical negligence. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Elliot v. Readdy et al Doc. 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT ELLIOT, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:10-cv-2980 MCE KJN P v. ORDER SHANKARI REDDY, et al., 15 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. On May 9, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 20 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant Beck filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations, and plaintiff filed a response. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 9, 2014 are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendant Dr. Reddy’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 119) is granted in 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 full. 3. Defendant Dr. Beck’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 106) is granted in part and denied in part. 4. Defendant Dr. Beck’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s state law claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, is granted. 5. Defendant Dr. Beck’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and medical negligence, is denied. 6. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Beck for deliberate indifference 12 to serious medical needs, and medical negligence. 13 Dated: June 25, 2014 14 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.
