Cazares v. Yates

Filing 18

ORDER Adopting 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that this Action Proceed only Against Defendants Tarek and Coleman for Deliberate Indifference and Recommending that all other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/5/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SIMON CAZARES, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00232-AWI-GBC (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS TAREK AND COLEMAN FOR DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE AND RECOMMENDING THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED v. JAMES A. YATES, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 Doc. 14 15 / 16 I. Procedural History 17 Plaintiff Simon Cazares (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 15, 2008, Plaintiff 19 filed the original complaint. Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 18, 2010, the Magistrate Judge 21 dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Doc. 6. On April 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed the first 22 amended complaint. Doc. 9. The Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that Plaintiff only stated a cognizable claim against 24 Defendants Tarek and Coleman for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Doc. 12. The 25 Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to either address the shortcomings of the complaint through 26 amendment or to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims. Doc. 12. 27 28 1 1 On December 27, 2011, Plaintiff gave notice of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable 2 Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Tarek and Coleman. Doc. 13. On January 4, 2011, 3 the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein. Doc. 14. The findings and 4 recommendations was served on Plaintiff which contained notice that any objections to the findings 5 and recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Doc. 14. Thirty days has since passed 6 and to date Plaintiff has not filed any objections. 7 8 II. Conclusion and Order 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 10 de novo review of this case. The Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to be 11 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. This action proceed against Defendants Tarek and Coleman for violation of 14 Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference of a serious 15 medical need; and 16 2. All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: 0m8i78 June 5, 2012 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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.


Why Is My Information Online?