From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Allison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 1, 2015
Case No. 1:10-cv-01814-LJO-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:10-cv-01814-LJO-JLT (PC)

06-01-2015

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, Plaintiff, v. ALLISON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT BYERS' MOTION TO DISMISS and DISREGARDING DEFENDANT LANGLER'S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT (Docs. 109, 132)

Plaintiff, Lawrence Christopher Smith, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which he filed on October 1, 2010. 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 March 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations to grant and Defendant Byers' motion to dismiss and that Defendant Langler's motion to dismiss should be disregarded as moot since no claim for deliberate indifference was found cognizable against Defendant Langler. (Doc. 132.) The Findings and Recommendations were served that same day and contained provisions for the parties to file objections within thirty days. Plaintiff requested and was granted an extension to May 18, 2015 to file objections. (Docs. 136, 138.) Due to clerical error, an Order Adopting the Findings and Recommendations issued on May 1, 2015 which did not account for the granting of Plaintiff's requested extension to file his objections, but the error was caught and it was withdrawn. (Docs. 139, 140.) Despite lapse of a few weeks beyond the extension granted to Plaintiff, neither side has filed any objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Byers is GRANTED without leave to amend and Defendant Byers is DISMISSED with prejudice from this action; and



2. the Screening F&R (Doc. 42) is clarified to the extent that no claim for deliberate indifference was found cognizable against Defendant Langler and Defendants' motion to dismiss any deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Langler is DISREGARDED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1 , 2015

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Smith v. Allison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 1, 2015
Case No. 1:10-cv-01814-LJO-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)
Case details for

Smith v. Allison

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, Plaintiff, v. ALLISON, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 1, 2015

Citations

Case No. 1:10-cv-01814-LJO-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)