Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02545/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02545-9/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE R. GOVEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT W. FOX, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2545 MCE DB P

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 March 5, 2020, 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. ECF No. 75. Plaintiff has 

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 76.

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

///

Case 2:15-cv-02545-MCE-DB Document 77 Filed 03/25/20 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 March 5, 2020 (ECF No. 75), are ADOPTED

in full; 

2. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Bick, Clark, Fox, Lewis and Rading (ECF

No. 65) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

a. Plaintiff may proceed with his Eighth Amendment claim against defendants

Bick, Clark, Fox, Lewis and Rading; 

b. Plaintiff’s ADA claims are DISMISSED; and

c. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state

law disability claims.

3. Defendant Wolfson’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 67) is GRANTED and he is

DISMISSED as a defendant in this action.

4. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 24, 2020 

Case 2:15-cv-02545-MCE-DB Document 77 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 2