(PC) Barth v. Romero et al, No. 2:2019cv00891 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/20/2021 ADOPTING 33 Findings and Recommendations in full. This action shall proceed on the second amended complaint as against Defendant Mey only on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical care claim in 10/2018; all other claims and defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Rodriguez, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Barth v. Romero et al Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAWN DAMON BARTH, 12 No. 2:19-CV-0891-JAM-DMC-P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ROMERO, et al., ORDER 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 17 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 Eastern District of California local rules. On October 26, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 20 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 22 objections within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations 23 have been filed. The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 25 supported by the record and the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 26, 2021, are adopted in 2. This action shall proceed on the second amended complaint as against 3 4 full; 5 Defendant Mey only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim based on denial of a 6 breathing treatment in October 2018; and 7 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim. 8 9 10 11 Dated: December 20, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 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.