Opinion

(PC) Brown v. Sagireddy

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Jun 11, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.4%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DEXTER BROWN, No. 2:17-cv-2041 KJM AC P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 PURUSHOTTAMA SAGIREDDY,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On April 22, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were

21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and

22 recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff has not filed

23 objections to the findings and recommendations.1

24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed

26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law

27

1 It appears plaintiff is deceased. See ECF No. 26. Nevertheless, this action may proceed if an

28 appropriate successor or representative is substituted for plaintiff. Id.

1 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court

2 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

3 supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 22, 2020, are adopted in full;

6 2. Defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Dr. Jeffrey Beard are dismissed from this

7 action;

8 3. This case proceeds, without further amendment to the complaint, on a single Eighth

9 Amendment claim against sole defendant Purushottama Sagireddy for deliberate indifference to

10 plaintiff’s serious medical needs; and

11 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial

12 proceedings.

13 DATED: June 10, 2020.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.