Huckabee v. Medical Staff at Csatf

Full title: ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL STAFF AT CSATF, et al.…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 13, 2018

No. 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2018)

Opinion

No. 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC)

03-13-2018

ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL STAFF AT CSATF, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING DEFENDANT JEFFREYS' MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 218, 262)

Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on plaintiff's fifth amended complaint against defendants Wu, McGuiness, Enenmoh, Jeffreys, and Jimenez for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On June 19, 2017, defendant Jeffreys filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim and to dismiss defendant Jeffreys from this action on the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against defendant Jeffreys upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. Nos. 218, 219.)

On January 31, 2018, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendant Jeffreys' motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. No. 262.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto must be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 6.) More than fourteen days have passed, and no objections have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case and carefully reviewed the entire file. The court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 31, 2018 (Doc. No. 262) are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Jeffreys' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 218) is granted due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against defendant Jeffreys;

3. Defendant Jeffreys is dismissed from this action;

4. This action shall proceed only against defendants Wu, McGuiness, Enenmoh, and Jimenez for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and

5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13 , 2018

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE