From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Steele v. CDCR

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 2, 2021
1:19-cv-00471-AWI-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021)

Opinion

1:19-cv-00471-AWI-JLT (PC)

09-02-2021

JUSTIN STEELE, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(DOC. NO. 28)

Plaintiff Justin Steele is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 28, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge filed a screening order, finding that Plaintiff's first amended complaint states cognizable claims of deliberate indifference against the defendants in their individual capacities, but that its official-capacity claims are not cognizable. Doc. No. 23. The magistrate judge directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading or to notify the court of his desire to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. Id. at 7. On July 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice that he “wishes to proceed only on the claims found cognizable.” Doc. No. 27.

Therefore, on August 2, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff's official-capacity claims be dismissed. Doc. No. 28. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided him 14 days to file objections thereto. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time to do so has passed.

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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 2, 2021 (Doc. No. 28) are ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff's official-capacity claims are DISMISSED; and, 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Steele v. CDCR

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 2, 2021
1:19-cv-00471-AWI-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021)
Case details for

Steele v. CDCR

Case Details

Full title:JUSTIN STEELE, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 2, 2021

Citations

1:19-cv-00471-AWI-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021)