From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Davey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 11, 2019
Case No.: 1:19-cv-00333-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2019)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00333-LJO-SAB (PC)

07-11-2019

MICHAEL THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. DAVID DAVEY, et.al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR INITIATION OF SERVICE OF PROCESS [ECF No. 10]

Plaintiff Michael Thomas is appearing pro se in 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 June 10, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that this action proceed against Defendants Licensed Vocational Nurse Thomas, Doctor Ulit, Doctor Mays, Doctor Doe No. 1 (who was on duty at Corcoran Facility 4B on December 24, 2014, second watch), and CMO Doe No. 2 (who denied authorization for the surgery on or about December 28, 2014) for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were due within twenty-one days. No objections were filed and the time to do so has expired.

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. This action shall proceed against Defendants Licensed Vocational Nurse Thomas, Doctor Ulit, Doctor Mays, Doctor Doe No. 1 (who was on duty at Corcoran Facility 4B on December 24, 2014, second watch), and CMO Doe No. 2 (who denied authorization for the surgery on or about December 28, 2014) for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

2. All other Defendants and claims are dismissed from the action; and

3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11 , 2019

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Thomas v. Davey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 11, 2019
Case No.: 1:19-cv-00333-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2019)
Case details for

Thomas v. Davey

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. DAVID DAVEY, et.al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 11, 2019

Citations

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00333-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2019)