Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01383/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01383-15/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

 The court is aware that on September 22, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the

complaint, which is currently pending before the magistrate judge. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1383 FCD EFB P

vs.

D. CALVIN, et al.,

Defendants. 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 General Order No. 262.

On September 8, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein 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 from the

date the findings and recommendations were served. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings

and recommendations.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

Case 2:07-cv-01383-FCD-EFB Document 118 Filed 10/01/08 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

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 by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 8, 2008, are adopted in

full;

2. The February 14, 2008, motion to dismiss is granted and:

a. Plaintiff’s claim that Dr. James was deliberately indifferent to

plaintiff’s serious medical needs are dismissed for failure to state a claim;

b. Plaintiff’s claim that Dr. James and Roche conspired to violate

plaintiff’s right to constitutionally adequate medical care are dismissed for failure to state a

claim; 

3. The March 14, 2008, motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiff’s claims

against McBride, Houghland and Amero are dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the

available administrative remedies.

So ordered.

DATED: October 1, 2008

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01383-FCD-EFB Document 118 Filed 10/01/08 Page 2 of 2