Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02324/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02324-9/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

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

ANTHONY CHAVARRIA,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

P. A. GREEN, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-02324-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 31.)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ RULE 

12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. 24.)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL 

CAPACITIES FROM THIS ACTION

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

FILE ANSWER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Anthony Chavarria (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 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 February 11, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 31.) On March 13, 

2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 32.) On the same 

date, Defendants also filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 33.)

Case 1:10-cv-02324-DAD-EPG Document 34 Filed 03/20/15 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

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, 

including the parties’ objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

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

11, 2015, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on July 28, 2014, is GRANTED IN PART 

and DENIED IN PART;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for damages against 

Defendants in their official capacities is GRANTED;

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss certain medical claims from Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, based on Plaintiff’s abandonment of the claims, is DENIED; 

5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss certain medical claims from the Complaint, 

based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, is DENIED;

6. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is DENIED;

7. Plaintiff’s claims for damages against Defendants in their official capacities are 

DISMISSED from this action;

8. Defendants are required to file an Answer to the Complaint within thirty days of 

the date of service of this order; and

9. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02324-DAD-EPG Document 34 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 2