Hood v. Mims et al

Filing 13

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this Action Proceed Only Against Defendants Chuna, Taylor, Wibbles, and Zavala, on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Medical Claims, and that All Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 07/03/14. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Twenty-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALBERT LEE HOOD,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
MARGARET MIMS, et al.,
Defendants.

16

1:13-cv-00108-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS
CHUNA, TAYLOR, WIBBLES, AND
ZAVALA, ON PLAINTIFF=S EIGHTH
AMENDMENT MEDICAL CLAIMS, AND
THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS

17
18

Albert Lee Hood (APlaintiff@) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against defendant officials

20

employed by the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department at the Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff filed

21

the Complaint commencing this action on January 24, 2013. (Doc. 1.)

22

The court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order

23

on May 8, 2014, requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the court that

24

he is willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court. (Doc. 9.) On June

25

30, 2014, Plaintiff notified the court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended

26

complaint and wishes to proceed only on the cognizable Eighth Amendment medical claims,

27

against defendants Correctional Officer Chuna, Sergeant Taylor, Corporal Wibbles, and

28

Correctional Officer Zavala. (Doc. 11.)
1

1

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

2

1.

This action proceed only against defendants Correctional Officer Chuna,

3

Sergeant Taylor, Corporal Wibbles, and Correctional Officer Zavala, on

4

Plaintiff’s claims for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment;

5

2.

All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; and

6

3.

Defendant Sheriff Margaret Mims be dismissed from this action based on

7

Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against

8

her.

9

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

10

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within

11

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

12

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to

13

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

14

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order.

15

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

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 3, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2