Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06433/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06433-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEY PORFIRIO BACA,

Plaintiff, CV F 01 6433 AWI WMW P 

vs. ORDER RE: FINDINGS & 

 RECOMMENDATIONS (#47)

DR. KELLEY,

Defendant.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

Rule 72-302. 

 On November 5, 2004, Findings and Recommendations were entered,

recommending dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections within thirty days. After

receiving numerous extensions of time to file objections, on November 15, 2005, plaintiff filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

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

73-305, 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

Case 1:01-cv-06433-AWI-WMW Document 59 Filed 12/02/05 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

2

proper analysis. Nothing in the objections provides a reason to not adopt the Findings and

Recommendations. The only Defendant in the third amended complaint is Dr. Kelly. Prison

officials do not violate the Eighth Amendment if their actions are the result of negligence,

difference of medical opinion, or malpractice. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations only show negligence or malpractice by Dr. Kelly. To the extent

Petitioner contends in his objections that Doe Defendants delayed his medical treatment, neither

the third amended complaint nor second amended complaint contained Doe Defendants. Thus,

it unnecessary to determine if Plaintiff has stated a claim in the objections against the Doe

Defendants. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on

November 5, 2004, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06433-AWI-WMW Document 59 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 2