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.

Davis v. High Desert State Prison

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 26, 2014

TERRENCE L. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

On February 7, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.[1]

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 7, 2014, are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 39, 40) are granted in part and denied in part;
3. Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims relating to his wheelchair, requested MRI, and pain specialist referral, and those claims are dismissed;
4. Plaintiff's claims regarding his pain medication sufficiently state a claim for deliberate indifference to his medical condition, and the motion to dismiss those claims is denied;
5. Plaintiff's claim for violation of his due process rights relating to his prison disciplinary hearing is insufficient, and the motion to dismiss that claim is granted;
6. Plaintiff's claim for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights relating to alleged threats against him is insufficient, and the motion to dismiss that claim is granted;
7. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings;
8. Defendants Vitvitski, Qualls, and Amero are dismissed from this action;
9. This action shall proceed as to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims relating to his pain medication against defendants Clark, Abdur-Rahman, Pomazal, and Burgett only; and
10. Defendants Clark, Abdur-Rahman, Pomazal, and Burgett shall file an answer to the complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.

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.