Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00136/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00136-6/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK BRADY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. TIMOTHY FISHBACK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00136-AWI-SMS P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND

DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND

DEFENDANTS

(Docs. 1 and 12)

Plaintiff Patrick Brady (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 72-302.

On October 24, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and

which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. 

To date, plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:06-cv-00136-ALA Document 16 Filed 01/03/07 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) and Local Rule 73-305, 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 24,

2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s complaint,

filed February 7, 2006, against defendants Fishback, Juarez, and

Villa on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim;

3. Plaintiff’s due process claim is DISMISSED from this

action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted;

4. Plaintiff’s ADA claim is DISMISSED from this action for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and,

5. Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED from this

action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00136-ALA Document 16 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2