Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01814/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01814-39/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

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-01814-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANT BYERS' MOTION TO 

DISMISS and DISREGARDING 

DEFENDANT LANGLER'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS AS MOOT

(Docs. 109, 132)

Plaintiff, Lawrence Christopher Smith, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which he filed on October 1, 2010. 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 March 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations to grant 

and Defendant Byers' motion to dismiss and that Defendant Langler's motion to dismiss should be 

disregarded as moot since no claim for deliberate indifference was found cognizable against 

Defendant Langler. (Doc. 132.) The Findings and Recommendations were served that same day 

and contained provisions for the parties to file objections within thirty days. Plaintiff requested 

and was granted an extension to May 18, 2015 to file objections. (Docs. 136, 138.) Due to 

clerical error, an Order Adopting the Findings and Recommendations issued on May 1, 2015 

which did not account for the granting of Plaintiff's requested extension to file his objections, but 

the error was caught and it was withdrawn. (Docs. 139, 140.) Despite lapse of a few weeks 

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/01/15 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

beyond the extension granted to Plaintiff, neither side has filed any objections to the Findings and 

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against 

Defendant Byers is GRANTED without leave to amend and Defendant Byers is 

DISMISSED with prejudice from this action; and 

2. the Screening F&R (Doc. 42) is clarified to the extent that no claim for deliberate 

indifference was found cognizable against Defendant Langler and Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss any deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Langler is 

DISREGARDED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 146 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 2