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)

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