(PC) Pitts v. Davis et al, No. 2:2012cv00823 - Document 66 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/20/13 ORDERING the findings and recommendations filed 7/24/13, are adopted in full; Defendants' 2/13/13 motion to dismiss 24 is granted, and the following claims are dismissed without prejudi ce: the claim against defendants Braunger and Kiesz re their alleged failure to provide timely access to a primary care physician; and all claims against defendants Austin, Morgan, Mefford, McAlpine, Trujillo, Davis, Fleischman, and Villanueva (de la Vega); Plaintiff's 5/31/13 motion for a stay 32 is denied; this action proceeds on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Fontillas, Froland and Broughn; This action also proceeds on plaintiffs claim that defendants Braunger and Keisz were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in relation to the delay in plaintiff's receiving his prescribed medication. (Becknal, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Pitts v. Davis et al Doc. 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDDIE L. PITTS, 12 No. 2:12-cv-0823 TLN AC P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 C. DAVIS, 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. On July 24, 2013, 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 twenty-one days. Plaintiff has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 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 July 24, 2013, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ February 13, 2013 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) is granted, and the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 following claims are dismissed without prejudice: (a) the claim against defendants Braunger and Kiesz regarding their alleged failure to provide timely access to a primary care physician; and (b) all claims against defendants Austin, Morgan, Mefford, McAlpine, Trujillo, Davis, Fleischman, and Villanueva (de la Vega) 3. Plaintiff’s May 31, 2013 motion for a stay (ECF No. 32) is denied; 4. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Fontillas, Froland and Broughn. 5. This action also proceeds on plaintiffs claim that defendants Braunger and Keisz were 13 deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in relation to the delay in plaintiff’s receiving his 14 prescribed medication. 15 DATED: November 20, 2013 16 17 18 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 19 20 21 /pitt0823.805 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.
