Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225-23/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ATCHERLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EDGAR CLARK, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv00225 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

DEFENDANT ANDERSON’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(Document 109)_

Plaintiff William Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on March 14, 2013, for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment and negligence against numerous Defendants. 

On May 27, 2014, Defendant Anderson filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 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 September 10, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on 

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 139 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 2
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

the parties and contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were 

to be filed within twenty-one days. No party has filed objections.

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 that the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 10, 2014, are ADOPTED in 

full; and

2. Defendant Anderson’s motion to dismiss (Document 68) is DENIED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Defendant Anderson filed an answer on October 9, 2014.

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 139 Filed 10/14/14 Page 2 of 2