Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01170/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01170-4/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

Plaintiff Jeffrey Franklin is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 27, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 

recommending that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim for discontinuance of radiation 

treatment and deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Dr. Tate, and all other claims and 

defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF. No. 

18.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections 

were due within twenty-one (21) days. (Id.) No objections were filed and time to do so has expired. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, 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 proper analysis.

JEFFREY FRANKLIN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD TATE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:19-cv-01170-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

[ECF No. 18] 

Case 1:19-cv-01170-AWI-SAB Document 19 Filed 03/04/20 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The January 27, 2020 Findings and Recommendations are adopted in full; 

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation and deliberate indifference claims 

against Defendant Dr. Tate; 

3. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed from the action for failure to state a 

cognizable claim for relief; and

4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01170-AWI-SAB Document 19 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 2