Carrea v. State

Full title: CHRISTOPHER CARREA, JR., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Jun 23, 2011

EDCV 07-1148-CAS (MAN) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2011)

Opinion

CHRISTOPHER CARREA, JR., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. No. EDCV 07-1148-CAS (MAN) United States District Court, C.D. California. June 23, 2011

          ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Third Amended Complaint, all of the records herein, the August 26, 2010 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), the June 9, 2011 filings by plaintiff, ¹ and defendant County of Riverside's reply. The Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been stated in writing. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1 These include: a Notice of Opposition to the Report and related Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Notice of Lodgment; a Request for Judicial Notice; and a Judicial Notice Request. The Court has reviewed and considered each of these documents. The two judicial notice requests are GRANTED.

         (1) The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge's Report;

         (2) The motion to require plaintiff to pay the filing fee due to his Three-Strike status filed on November 2, 2009, is DENIED;

         (3) The motion to dismiss filed by defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") on October 21, 2009, is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as set forth below;

         (4) The motion to dismiss filed by defendant Renaissance Radiology Medical Group ("Renaissance Radiology") on October 27, 2009, is DENIED;

         (5) The motion to strike filed by Renaissance Radiology on October 27, 2009, is DENIED with prejudice as to the portion of the motion seeking to strike "inflammatory" language, and without prejudice as to the portion of the motion seeking to strike plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages;

         (6) The motion to dismiss filed by defendant Riverside County Regional Medical Center, appearing as the County of Riverside ("RCRMC"), is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as set forth below:

         (7) All federal claims against defendants CDCR and RCRMC are dismissed with prejudice;

         (8) All federal claims against defendant Warden Poulos arising out of plaintiff's disciplinary conviction are dismissed with prejudice, and all remaining federal claims against defendant Warden Poulos are dismissed without prejudice;

         (9) All federal claims against defendant Dr. Yee are dismissed without prejudice;

         (10) All federal and state claims against defendants Dr. Minsley and Dr. Lyle Royer are dismissed without prejudice; and

         (11) All remaining state law claims are remanded to the Superior Court for San Francisco County.

         LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.