Opinion
No. 1:18-cv-01316-DAD-GSA (PC)
05-20-2020
EDWARD SIMEON PITTMAN, Plaintiff, v. DR. GEOFFREY KAMEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, PERMITTING ACTION TO PROCEED WITH CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 16)
Plaintiff Edward Simeon Pittman is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 April 8, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only with plaintiff's medical indifference claim against defendant Kamen and retaliation claims against defendants Kamen and Hickman. (Doc. No. 16 at 5-7, 10-11.) The magistrate judge also recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim. (Id. at 12.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 8, 2020 (Doc. No. 16) are adopted in full;
2. This action now proceeds with plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. No. 14) on the following claims:
a. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against defendant Kamen; and
b. Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Kamen and Hickman;
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this case without leave to amend due to plaintiff's repeated failures to state a claim; and
4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process.
Dated: May 20 , 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE