Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01743/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01743-9/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 

DONNELL BOYCE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL FOX, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1743 KJM KJN 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 January 30, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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. Neither party has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 

the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 

the proper analysis. 

Case 2:14-cv-01743-KJM-KJN Document 44 Filed 03/07/17 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 the findings and recommendations filed 

January 30, 2017, are adopted in full and defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and 

denied in part, as follows: 

 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims as unexhausted is denied without 

prejudice; 

 2. Plaintiff’s claims that defendants Fox and Does 1 - 5 failed to implement policies and 

procedures to warn him about, screen for, or protect plaintiff from Valley Fever upon his 

placement and housing at DVI in 2011 to 2012 are dismissed, and, in the alternative, defendants 

Fox and Does 1 - 5 are granted qualified immunity as to such claims; 

 3. Defendant Kim is dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to include any 

charging allegations against defendant Kim; 

 4. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Ogbodo are dismissed without prejudice; and 

 5. Defendant Dr. Wong’s motion to dismiss is denied, and Dr. Wong is required to file an 

answer within fourteen days of the filed date of this order. 

DATED: March 6, 2017 

Case 2:14-cv-01743-KJM-KJN Document 44 Filed 03/07/17 Page 2 of 2