Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02105/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02105-3/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

TIMOTHY LECOMPTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DHAH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-02105 LJO-DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Document 23)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Timothy LeCompte (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 21, 2011. The action is proceeding on an 

Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants F.N.P. Dhah, Dr. Moon, Dr. Jeffrey Wang, Teresa 

Macias and L. D. Zamora.

On April 29, 2013, Defendants Moon, Wang, Macias and Zamora filed this Motion to 

Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 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 30, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and 

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

filed within thirty days. Over thirty days have passed and no objections have been filed.

 

1 There is no indication that Defendant Dhah has been served.

Case 1:11-cv-02105-LJO-DLB Document 24 Filed 11/07/13 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), 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 proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 30, 2013, are ADOPTED in 

full; 

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Document 15) is DENIED; and

3. Defendants SHALL file a responsive pleading within thirty (30) days of the date of 

service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:11-cv-02105-LJO-DLB Document 24 Filed 11/07/13 Page 2 of 2