Opinion
1:20-cv-00682-NE-GSA-PC
11-01-2021
EDWARD B. SPENCER, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD MILAN, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL
(DOC. NO. 17)
ORDER THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT MILAN FOR ADVERSE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND DISMISSING STATE CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(DOC. NO. 1)
Plaintiff Edward B. Spencer is a state 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).
On September 23, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only on plaintiff's claims against defendant Richard Milan for adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, that all remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim, and that plaintiff's state law claims be dismissed without prejudice to bringing the state law claims in state court. (Doc. No. 17.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed with the court, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this 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 by proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings \and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September 23, 2021 (Doc. No. 17), are adopted in full;
2. This action now proceeds only with plaintiff s claims against defendant Richard Milan for adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action;
4. Plaintiff s state law claims are dismissed from this action without prejudice to bringing plaintiffs state law claims in state court; and
5. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.