Pedro Rodriguez v. Neil McDowell et al
| Pedro Rodriguez |
| D. Deering, Jim Lee, Maletz, W. McCullough, Neil McDowell, S Moore, S. Moore, S. Newton and M. Winsick |
| 5:2018cv00400 |
| February 26, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Andrew J. Guilford |
| Alicia G. Rosenberg |
| Other |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
118
JUDGMENT by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, Related to: R&R - Accepting Report and Recommendations 117 . IT IS ADJUDGED that Judgment is entered for Defendants and this action is dismissed. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants McDowell, Moore, Maletz, Newton and Deering based on Plaintiff's spinal condition is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. All other claims are dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (hr)
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford for Report and Recommendation 63 , MOTION to Dismiss Complaint 57 . IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint within 30 days after entry of this order in accordance with the Report. (see document for further details) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Rights Complaint Form) (hr)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
