Taylor

(PC) Odom v. Taylor

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 20, 20231:20-cv-01120California2,022 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

20 Following screening of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the undersigned 21 recommended this action proceed on Plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of her Eighth 22 Amendment rights against Defendants Taylor, Khoo, Antenello, Eznewugo, Mitchell and Singh 23 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. (Doc. 21.) Further, the undersigned 24 recommended that Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) 25 and Unknown CDCR Contractor for Prosthetics, as well as Plaintiff’s remaining claims, be 26 dismissed from the action. (Id. at 8.) On March 20, 2023, District Judge Ana de Alba issued her 27 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Certain Claims and Defendants. (Doc. 22.) Specifically, the findings were adopted in full, CDCR and Unknown CDCR Contractor for Prosthetics were dismissed, and the action was to proceed only on Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendant Taylor, Khoo, Antenello, Eznewugo, Mitchell and Singh. (Id. at 2.) On March 23, 2023, the Court issued its Order Finding Service of Second Amended Complaint Appropriate. (Doc.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.