Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00289/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00289-21/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Herrera
Plaintiff
Rouch
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ROBERTO HERRERA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ROUCH,

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

(ECF Nos. 32 & 88)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendant Rouch on Plaintiff’s inadequate medical care claim. (ECF No. 18.) The 

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California.

On September 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a

recommendation to deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF 

No. 88.) The motion also sought to dismiss the action for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies, but Defendant was permitted to withdraw that argument and to 

raise it in a motion for summary judgment in light of Albino v. Vaca, 747 F.3d 1162, 

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 111 Filed 03/06/15 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

1166 (9th Cir. 2014). Defendant did, in fact, file a motion for summary judgment for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which presently is pending before the Court. 

Plaintiff objected to the findings and recommendation on the ground the Magistrate 

Judge did not also deny (and indeed did not address) the motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 95.) No other objections were filed. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds the September 16, 2014 findings and recommendation to be supported by 

the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not raise an issue of law or 

fact. 

 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendation to deny Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 88), filed September 

16, 2014, in full; and 

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32), filed December 26, 2013, is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 6, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 111 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 2