Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00198/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00198-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVON E. McCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SPIDLE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00198-AWI-GSA PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CLAIM

AGAINST DEFENDANT MADRIGAL, AND

DISMISSING DEFENDANT MADRIGAL

FROM ACTION

(Doc. 13)

Plaintiff Davon E. McCoy (“plaintiff”) 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 72-302.

On August 31, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff did not file a timely

Objection to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 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 andRecommendationsto be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 31, 2007, is adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s complaint, filed February 6, 2007, against

defendants Spidle, Perry, Doyle, Dreith, Does 1 through 3, Dangler, Watson,

Case 1:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 23 Filed 10/16/07 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

2

Stockman, Buckley, Garza, Allen, and Samaya for denial of due process, against

defendant Dangler for retaliation, and against defendants Garcia, McNamara,

Tomlin, Kee, Rubacalaba, Poblete, Reyes, Renoso, Gonzales, Compos, and Morales

for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs; and

3. Plaintiff’s medical claim against defendant Madrigal, and defendant Madrigal, are

dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 23 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 2