The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge
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 Rule 302.
On January 14, 2013, 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 twenty-eight days. Defendants have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 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.
Specifically, defendants claim that the magistrate recommended granting plaintiff leave to amend Count 2 as to defendants Maness and Cannon only, and asks that all remaining defendants be dismissed with prejudice. See ECF No. 29 at 2-3. Defendants are incorrect. The magistrate instead recommended dismissing count two with leave to amend "that portion of his complaint concerning his treatment, or non-treatment, for hepatitis and cirrhosis," and also specifically noted that plaintiff had failed to identify the appropriate defendants for his claim. ECF No. 28 at 14-15. Defendants' objections will be overruled.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' objections, filed January 17, 2013, (ECF No. 29) are overruled;
2. The findings and recommendations filed January 14, 2013 are adopted in full;
3. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is granted, and plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint as to Count 2 only.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...