Ricks v. Austria et al

Filing 53

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants 49 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/26/2018: This case proceeds only on Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Austria for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

SCOTT K. RICKS,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

A. AUSTRIA,

13

Defendant.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-cv-01147-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(ECF No. 49)

Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

15
16

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is related to Ricks v. Onyeye, et al.,

17

1:15-cv-1148-AWI-BAM, and Ricks v. Levine, et al., 1:15-cv-1150-AWI-BAM.
On August 5, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint and

18
19

found that he stated a claim against Dr. Austria for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious

20

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 20.) The magistrate judge

21

dismissed all other claims and defendants, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No.

22

22.)

23

On December 22, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened Plaintiff’s complaint,

24

recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017),

25

had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with prejudice in

26

screening prisoner complaints even if a plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction,

27

as Plaintiff did here. (ECF No. 49.) Concurrently, the magistrate judge issued findings and

28

recommendations recommending that the undersigned dismiss the non-cognizable claims. (Id.)
1

1

The parties were given fourteen days to file objections to those findings and recommendations.

2

The parties did not file any objections, and the time in which to do so has expired.

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the

4

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of the case. The undersigned concludes the

5

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 22, 2017, (ECF No. 49) are
adopted in full;
2. This case proceeds only on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Austria for deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
3. All other claims, and Defendants Chernekoff, Odeluga, and Kelso, are dismissed from
this action for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: February 26, 2018

16

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2