Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00507/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00507-14/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

JERRY DILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. EMERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

(ECF Nos. 54, 61)

Plaintiff Jerry Dillingham is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 19, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge filed findings and 

recommendation, recommending that Defendant Velasco’s, Martines’s, Loftin’s, Emerson’s, 

Marsh’s, Wescoat’s, and Wilson’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim based 

on qualified immunity be denied. (ECF No. 61.) The findings and recommendation were served 

on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) 

days after service. (Id. at 10.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has 

passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation are supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Case 1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB Document 66 Filed 02/20/20 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on December 19, 2019, (ECF No. 61), are 

adopted in full;

2. Defendants Velasco’s, Martines’s, Loftin’s, Emerson’s, Marsh’s, Wescoat’s, and 

Wilson’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, (ECF No. 54), is 

DENIED; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB Document 66 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 2