HARBOR v. FRAZE, 2:14-cv-1781 WBS EFB P (TEMP). (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160128c00
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2016
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On April 14, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd's order filed March 30, 2015. In the order, Judge Drozd found that plaintiff's complaint appeared to state a cognizable claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Dr. Dhillon in connection with a knee inju
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On April 14, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd's order filed March 30, 2015. In the order, Judge Drozd found that plaintiff's complaint appeared to state a cognizable claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Dr. Dhillon in connection with a knee injur..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 14, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd's order filed March 30, 2015. In the order, Judge Drozd found that plaintiff's complaint appeared to state a cognizable claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Dr. Dhillon in connection with a knee injury plaintiff had suffered. Judge Drozd also found, however, that plaintiff's complaint did not state a cognizable claim against named defendants Sahota, Copley, Lewis, and Zamora because plaintiff had failed to allege how these defendants were "deliberately indifferent" to his serious medical needs.
Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Id. Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. To the contrary, the court finds the magistrate judge's analysis and conclusions in that Order to be correct.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 19) is denied.
Source: Leagle
