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)

Download PDF
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

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?