Baker v. Yates

Filing 61

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Defendant James A. Yates be Dismissed from this 2 Action signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 06/04/2013. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 7/8/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HARVEY CURTIS BAKER,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00126-LJO-SAB
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT JAMES
A. YATES BE DISMISSED FROM THIS
ACTION

JAMES A. YATES,
Defendant.

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30)
DAYS

16
17

Plaintiff Harvey Curtis Baker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

18

rights action. On April 9, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it stated a

19

cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Unidentified Correctional Officer

20

Jane Doe #1 for the violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 54.)

21

The Court further found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any other claims. Specifically,

22

Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any claims under California state law, failed to state any

23

claims for equitable relief, and failed to state any claims against Defendant James A. Yates.

24

The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies in

25

his non-cognizable claims or to notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims

26

found to be cognizable in the Court’s screening order. On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff informed the

27

Court that he wishes to proceed solely on the claims found to be cognizable in the Court’s

28

screening order. (ECF No. 59.)
1

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

2

1.

This action proceed solely against Defendant Unidentified Correctional Officer

3

Jane Doe #1 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the

4

Eighth Amendment; and

5

2.

6

That Plaintiff’s state law claims, claims for equitable relief and claims against
Defendant James A. Yates be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

7

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

8

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

9

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

10

30 days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and

11

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

12

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

13

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections

14

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

15

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
Dated:
19

June 4, 2013

_

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2