Summers v. Chapnick et.al.

Filing 32

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending To Dismiss Certain Claims (ECF Nos. 27 & 31 ), Fourteen-Day Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/25/2014. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 9/12/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE EDWARD SUMMERS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
R. CHAPNICK, et al.,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00190-LJO-DLB
FINDINGS AND RECOMMEDNDATIONS
RECOMMENDING TO DISMISS CERTAIN
CLAIMS
(ECF Nos. 27 & 31)

Defendants.

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

Plaintiff George Edward Summers (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the

18

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR This action was filed on May

19

16, 2012 in the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On February 6, 2013, the case was

20

transferred to the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 15.)

21

On October 18, 2013, the Court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to file an

22

amended complaint or notify the Court of willingness to proceed on claims identified. (ECF No.

23

27.) On November 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on the Court’s screening

24

order. (ECF No. 28.)

25

reconsideration and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of

26

willingness to proceed on claims identified. (ECF No. 30.)

27

filed a response indicating that he wished only to proceed on the claims against Defendants Biol

28

and Siegrist for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, in violation of the Eighth

On November 21, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for

1

On December 26, 2013, Plaintiff

1

Amendment. (ECF No. 31.)

2

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

3

1.

This action proceeds on Plaintiff's complaint, filed November 13, 2012, against

4

Defendants Biol and Siegrist for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, in violation of

5

the Eighth Amendment.

6
7

2.

All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to

state a claim.

8

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this

9

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen

10

(14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these findings

11

and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

12

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

13

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff

14

is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

15

district judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

The district judge will review the

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

August 25, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2