Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Villery v. Beard, 1:15-cv-00987-DAD-BAM (PC). (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20171024h13 Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2017
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. 25) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Jared M. Villery is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This 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 5, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc.
More

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. 25)

Plaintiff Jared M. Villery is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 5, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. No. 22) and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed against defendants Kendall, Acosta, Naficy, Jones, Guerrero, Aithal, Seymour, Carrizales, Woodard, Pallares, Hernandez, Fisher, Grimmig, and Miranda for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants Beard and Kernan for promulgation of a policy to deny single cell housing for inmates with serious mental disorders in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 25.) The magistrate judge further recommended that plaintiff's claims against defendants CDCR, J. Lewis, R. L. Briggs, K. Z. Allen, Oleg Liflyandsky, C. Cornell, Barbara Zager, Kimberly Holland, R. A. Groves, and C. Schuyler be dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id.)

The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. More than thirty days have passed, and no objections have been filed.

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

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 5, 2017 (Doc. No. 25) are adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed against defendants Kendall, Acosta, Naficy, Jones, Guerrero, Aithal, Seymour, Carrizales, Woodard, Pallares, Hernandez, Fisher, Grimmig, and Miranda for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants Beard and Kernan for promulgation of a policy to deny single cell housing for inmates with serious mental disorders, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

3. Plaintiff's claims against defendants CDCR, J. Lewis, R. L. Briggs, K. Z. Allen, Oleg Liflyandsky, C. Cornell, Barbara Zager, Kimberly Holland, R. A. Groves, and C. Schuyler are dismissed from this action for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and

4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer