# (PC) Dugger v. United States

> District Court, E.D. California · August 18, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11122996

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 18, 2025
- **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/11122996

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 TIMOTHY DUGGER, No. 2:23-cv-01057-DC-AC (PC)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., CERTAIN CLAIMS
15 Defendants. (ECF No. 7)
16
17 Plaintiff, a former federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
18 under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
19 (1971), the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act,
20 and state law. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
21 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
22 On January 29, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein that
23 were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and
24 recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff has not filed
25 objections to the findings and recommendations.
26 /////
27 /////
28 /////
1 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be
2 || supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
3 | ORDERED that:
4 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 7) are ADOPTED in full;
5 2. Plaintiff's Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims against all
6 Defendants are dismissed without leave to amend;
7 3. Plaintiffs state law claims against Defendants Thompson, Bouleware, Brown, and
8 Allred are dismissed without leave to amend;
9 4. This case proceeds on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical
10 care against Defendants Thompson, Bouleware, Brown, and Allred and on □□□□□□□□□□□
11 claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States of America; and
12 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial
13 proceedings.
14
15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ August 18, 2025 LY x
17 Dena Coggins
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11122996. Public record. Not legal advice.