Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00899/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00899-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN C. MARTINEZ, ) 1:09cv0899 LJO DLB

)

) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS

) AND RECOMMENDATIONS

) (Document 44)

Plaintiff, )

)

 vs. )

)

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., )

)

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

On July 14, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on the issue of whether any Defendants conspired to

undermine Plaintiff’s health care treatment be DENIED. The Magistrate Judge also DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss misjoined defendants. The

Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the order. 

On July 23, 2010, Defendants filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. In

their objections, Defendants essentially contend that the uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that

they did not conspire to undermine Plaintiff’s medical care or to retaliate against him. Defendants

request that the Court decline to adopt the Findings and Recommendations, and instead grant

1

Case 1:09-cv-00899-LJO-DLB Document 47 Filed 08/12/10 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

Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on the conspiracy claim. Defendants also request that

the Court grant the motion to dismiss misjoined Defendants. 

Any reply to the objections was to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the

objections. Plaintiff did not file a reply. 

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

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

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued July 14, 2010, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on the issue of whether any Defendants

conspired to undermine Plaintiff’s health care treatment is DENIED; and

3. Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss misjoined defendants is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00899-LJO-DLB Document 47 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 2