Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391-18/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL G. VALENCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WINFRED KOKOR, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS 

(Document 59)

Plaintiff Daniel G. Valencia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 

this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 30, 2013. 

Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 25, 2015. 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 October 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the 

action go forward on Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Kokor and Sundaram, and that 

all other claims be dismissed. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and 

contained notice that any objections must be filed within twenty-one days. No objections have been 

filed.

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 61 Filed 12/11/15 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

27

28

2

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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 28, 2015, are adopted in full; 

2. This action SHALL proceed on the Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants 

Kokor and Sundaram;

3. All other claims are DISMISSED; and 

4. Within fourteen days of the date of service of this order, counsel for Defendant Kokor 

SHALL inform the Court whether she will accept service for Defendant Sundaram.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 61 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 2