(PC) Lesperance v. Manning et al, No. 2:2016cv00764 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/3/2019 ADOPTING 8 findings and recommendations in full. Defendants Holley and Bradley are DISMISSED from this action. Plaintiff's putative Sixth Amendment claim, First Amendment retaliation claim, and Eighth Amendment claim asserting deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, are DISMISSED from this action without leave to amend. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
(PC) Lesperance v. Manning et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK LESPERANCE, 12 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-0764 JAM AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER T. MANNING, 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. 20 On July 30, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 26 ORDERED that: 27 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2019, are adopted in full; 28 2. Defendants Holley and Bradley are dismissed from this action; and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 3. Plaintiff’s putative Sixth Amendment claim, First Amendment retaliation claim, and 2 Eighth Amendment claim asserting deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, are 3 dismissed from this action without leave to amend. 4 5 6 7 DATED: September 3, 2019 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 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.