Rust v. Chino Prison Healthcare Providers, 5:17-cv-00556-JAK-KES. (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20190531895
Visitors: 17
Filed: May 29, 2019
Latest Update: May 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN A. KRONSTADT , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the April 17, 2019 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 83). Furtherm the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections (Dkt. 86) have been made. The Court accepts the fin
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN A. KRONSTADT , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the April 17, 2019 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 83). Furtherm the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections (Dkt. 86) have been made. The Court accepts the find..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JOHN A. KRONSTADT, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the April 17, 2019 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 83). Furtherm the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections (Dkt. 86) have been made. The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 66) is granted, and Judgment shall be entered:
(a) for Defendants with prejudice as to Plaintiff's (i) Eighth Amendment claims against Drs. Vu and Farooq arising out of their alleged failure to protect him from LVN Warfield, (ii) Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Vu arising out of the failure to provide Plaintiff with a cervical pillow, and (iii) Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Dr. Vu arising out of his alleged retaliation against Plaintiff failing to provide him with a cervical pillow (see Dkt. 83);
(b) dismissing all of Plaintiff's other federal claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (see Dkt. 57, 62); and
(c) dismissing claims sounding in state law (if any) without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing those claims in state court.
Source: Leagle
