Womack v. Tate

Full title: RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, Plaintiff, v. H. TATE, et al. Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 2, 2021

No. 1:19-cv-00614-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021)

Opinion

No. 1:19-cv-00614-DAD-BAM

04-02-2021

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, Plaintiff, v. H. TATE, et al. Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 34)

Plaintiff Rodney Jerome Womack is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 January 20, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendant Tate for deliberate indifference in violation of plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 34.) The pending findings and recommendations also recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 12.) On February 4, 2021, plaintiff was granted a thirty-day extension of time to file his objections. (Doc. No. 36.) To date no objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has long since 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 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 on January 20, 2021 a(Doc. No. 34), are adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed September 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 32), against defendant Tate for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

3. All other claims are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and

4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2 , 2021

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE