Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00865/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00865-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY D. WAFER,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. SUESBERRY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv–00865-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS,

WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM

(ECF Nos. 33, 44)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Anthony D. Wafer is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 July 27, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was

served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed an

Objection.

In his objection, Plaintiff moves again for appointment of counsel and appointment of a

special master. (Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations 16-17, ECF No.

44.) Plaintiff may not combine motions with his Objection to the Findings and Recommendation.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions brought in his Objection shall be disregarded. 

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 the Findings

1

Case 1:07-cv-00865-AWI-BAM Document 45 Filed 01/14/13 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

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 27, 2012, is adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Suesberry based upon his

alleged inadequate performance of the surgery on April 24, 2003, and treatment to

prevent the reoccurrence of the keloids is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to

state a claim;

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Yamaguchi, Pacheco,

Greenough, Kimura-Yip, Grannis, Hodges-Wilkins, and Jane Doe are dismissed,

with prejudice, for failure to state a claim;

4. Defendants Yamaguchi, Pacheco, Greenough, Kimura-Yip, Grannis, HodgesWilkins, McGuiness, and Jane Doe are dismissed from this action;

5. Plaintiff’s official capacity claims and request for declaratory relief are dismissed,

without leave to amend;

6. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an attorney is denied;

7. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a special master is denied; and

8. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in

this order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended

complaint and is willing to proceed only against Defendants Suesberry,

Reynolds, and Hasadsir for failure to provide medication in violation of the

Eighth Amendment.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 12, 2013 

0m8i78 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00865-AWI-BAM Document 45 Filed 01/14/13 Page 2 of 2