Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00474/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00474-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL ROBERTS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-0474 MCE DAD P

vs.

M. D. McDONALD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 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 27, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

1

Case 2:11-cv-00474-MCE-DAD Document 61 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 27, 2013, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

(Doc. No. 35) is denied; 

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. No. 35) is

granted in part and denied in part as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to 

§ 1983 against defendants in their official capacity is granted; 

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief

as moot is granted; and

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against defendant Dr.

Swingle as based on a vicarious liability theory is denied;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the affirmative defense of qualified

immunity (Doc. No. 35) is denied;

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief under

the ADA (Doc. No. 35) is granted;

5. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 43) is denied; and 

6. Defendants are directed to file an answer in response to plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment and ADA claims within thirty days of any order adopting these findings and

recommendations.

2

Case 2:11-cv-00474-MCE-DAD Document 61 Filed 08/13/13 Page 2 of 2