Lopez v. Shultz

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER Finding Certain Claims Cognizable; ORDER DISMISSING Other Claims and Defendants; and ORDER Referring Back to Magistrate Judge for Initiation of Service signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/10/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARLOS FRANCISCO LOPEZ,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 1:16-cv-00038-DAD-GSA

Plaintiff,
v.
V. SHULTZ, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, FINDING CERTAIN
CLAIMS COGNIZABLE, DISMISSING
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND
REFERRING BACK TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE FOR INITIATION OF SERVICE
(Doc. No. 13)

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on plaintiff’s original

20

complaint filed on January 12, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States

21

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On November 14, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding

23

cognizable claims only against (1) defendant Shultz for failure to protect plaintiff in violation of

24

the Eighth Amendment; (2) defendants Rodriguez and Nurse Doe #6 for inadequate medical care

25

in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (3) defendants Zanchi and Sergeant Doe #5 for retaliation

26

in violation of the First Amendment; and (4) related state law claims. (Doc. No. 13.) That

27

screening order directed plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint addressing the

28

deficiencies noted therein or to notify the court of his willingness to proceed on the claims found
1

1

cognizable by the court in the screening order. (Id.) Plaintiff notified the court on November 21,

2

2016 that he wished to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order and

3

did not wish to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 12.) On December 29, 2016, the

4

magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending the above-mentioned

5

claims be allowed to proceed against the identified defendants, and all other claims and

6

defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable federal

7

claim against them. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to

8

those findings and recommendations within twenty days. No objection to the findings and

9

recommendations have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.

10

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

11

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

12

file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record

13

and proper analysis.

14

Given the above:

15

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on December 29,

16
17

2016 (Doc. No. 13) are adopted in full;
2. This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint filed on January 12, 2016

18

(Doc. No. 1) against (a) defendant Shultz for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth

19

Amendment; (b) defendants Rodriguez and Nurse Doe #6 for inadequate medical care in violation

20

of the Eighth Amendment; (c) defendants Zanchi and Sergeant Doe #5 for retaliation in violation

21

of the First Amendment; and (d) related state law claims;

22

3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; and

23

4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings,

24

including initiation of service.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated:

May 10, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2