Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00029/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00029-17/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD ERNEST ANAYA,

Plaintiff, 2:07-cv-0029-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, 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 General Order No. 262.

On December 5, 2007, the magistrate judge filed an order and findings and

recommendations herein, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss filed August 17, 2007,

and August 9, 2007, with leave to amend, and recommended that defendants’ August 9, 2007,

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s medical practice claim against defendant Smith be denied. The

order and findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the

parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty

days. On December 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations,

and to the order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss filed August 17, 2007, and August 9,

Case 2:07-cv-00029-GGH Document 71 Filed 02/06/08 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

2

2007, with leave to amend. The court construes plaintiff’s objections to the order as a request for

reconsideration.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, 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. The court further finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s order

was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 72-303(f) (stating that a magistrate

judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed December 5,

2007, is affirmed;

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended

complaint;

3. The findings and recommendations filed December 5, 2007, are adopted in

full; and

4. Defendants’ August 9, 2007, motion to dismiss plaintiff’s medical practice

claim against defendant Smith is denied.

Dated: February 5, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00029-GGH Document 71 Filed 02/06/08 Page 2 of 2