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.

Chester Ray Wiseman v. Matthew Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 30, 2012

CHESTER RAY WISEMAN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (Docs. 11 and 14)

Plaintiff Chester Ray Wiseman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 6, 2010. 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 March 9, 2012, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's amended complaint and recommended dismissal of certain claims and parties for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff was given thirty days within which to file an objection, but none was filed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on March 9, 2012, in full;

2. This action for damages shall proceed on Plaintiff's amended complaint against Defendant Romero for failing to honor Plaintiff's medical chrono, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

3. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Romero arising out of the failure to immediately summon medical care is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983;

4. Plaintiff's section 845.6 claim is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act;

5. Defendants Cate and Harrington are dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims against them; and

6. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120430

© 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.