# (PC) Brown v. Sagireddy

> District Court, E.D. California · June 11, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10019738

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 11, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10019738

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10019738. Public record. Not legal advice.