From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Collins v. Lopez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 3, 2013
Case No. 1:11-cv-01534-LJO-SKO PC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 1:11-cv-01534-LJO-SKO PC

09-03-2013

LARNELL C. COLLINS, Plaintiff, v. SHERRY LOPEZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER (1) ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, (2) GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS LOPEZ, SCHAEFER, CHEN,

TUHIN, AND SHITTU'S MOTIONS TO

DISMISS, AND (3) REQUIRING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER WITHIN

TWENTY DAYS


(Docs. 14, 19, and 29)

Plaintiff Larnell C. Collins, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 12, 2011. This action is proceeding against Defendants Lopez, Schaefer, Chen, Tuhin, Negre, and Shittu for violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising out of the failure to provide adequate medical care for Plaintiff's fractured hand. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 7, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations recommending that Defendants Lopez, Tuhin, Chen, Schaefer, and Shittu's Motions to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The parties were provided fourteen days within which to file Objections and none were filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis, and they shall be adopted in full.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on August 7, 2013, is adopted in full;

2. Defendants Lopez, Tuhin, Chen, Schaefer, and Shittu's Motions to Dismiss, filed on February 14, 2013, and April 5, 2013, are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants' motion to dismiss the official capacity claim against Defendant Lopez is GRANTED and the claim is dismissed, with prejudice;

b. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims as barred by the statute of limitations is DENIED; and

c. Defendants' motions to dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted are DENIED, with prejudice; and

3. Defendants Lopez, Tuhin, Chen, Schaefer, and Shittu shall file an answer to Plaintiff's Complaint within twenty (20) days. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Collins v. Lopez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 3, 2013
Case No. 1:11-cv-01534-LJO-SKO PC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2013)
Case details for

Collins v. Lopez

Case Details

Full title:LARNELL C. COLLINS, Plaintiff, v. SHERRY LOPEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 3, 2013

Citations

Case No. 1:11-cv-01534-LJO-SKO PC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2013)