Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arthur Petrosyan v. Hedgpeth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 22, 2012

ARTHUR PETROSYAN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
HEDGPETH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, AND REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (ECF No. 32)

ORDER

Plaintiff Arthur Petrosyan ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 2, 2009. (ECF No. 1.) This action proceeds on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed on June 15, 2009. (ECF No. 10.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On August 12, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation recommending that Defendants Zamora, Ali, Grannis, and Youssef's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF Nos. 27 & 32.) No objections were filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule 305, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, Defendants Zamora, Ali, Grannis, and Youssef's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted in part and denied in part.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed August 12, 2011, is adopted in full;

2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the claims based on Plaintiff not receiving pain medication for four days (between December 22 and 26, 2008) is GRANTED and the claims are dismissed with prejudice as to the defendants named in the Amended Complaint;

3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the remaining Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims based on Plaintiff not receiving the recommended treatment for his injury is DENIED; and

4. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20120322

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.