Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.
On July 31, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fifteen days from the date the findings and recommendations were served. Dckt. No. 86. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Dckt. No. 90.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed July 31, 2009, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's February 6, 2009, motion for default judgment is denied; and,
3. The following claims in the third amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice:
a. That Segerstrom Adams, Cox, James and Dial conspired to deny plaintiff medical treatment for his jaw;
b. That Leo, Roche, Woodford and Felker are subject to liability based on their supervisory positions;
c. That M. Wright violated plaintiff's rights by interfering with an administrative investigation of Costra; and,
d. That defendants are subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 & 1986.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...