Lopez v. Shultz
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CARLOS FRANCISCO LOPEZ,
V. SHULTZ, et al.,
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
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on plaintiff’s original
complaint filed on January 12, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 14, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding
cognizable claims only against (1) defendant Shultz for failure to protect plaintiff in violation of
the Eighth Amendment; (2) defendants Rodriguez and Nurse Doe #6 for inadequate medical care
in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (3) defendants Zanchi and Sergeant Doe #5 for retaliation
in violation of the First Amendment; and (4) related state law claims. (Doc. No. 13.) That
screening order directed plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint addressing the
deficiencies noted therein or to notify the court of his willingness to proceed on the claims found
cognizable by the court in the screening order. (Id.) Plaintiff notified the court on November 21,
2016 that he wished to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order and
did not wish to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 12.) On December 29, 2016, the
magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending the above-mentioned
claims be allowed to proceed against the identified defendants, and all other claims and
defendants be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable federal
claim against them. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to
those findings and recommendations within twenty days. No objection to the findings and
recommendations have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire
file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record
and proper analysis.
Given the above:
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on December 29,
2016 (Doc. No. 13) are adopted in full;
2. This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint filed on January 12, 2016
(Doc. No. 1) against (a) defendant Shultz for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth
Amendment; (b) defendants Rodriguez and Nurse Doe #6 for inadequate medical care in violation
of the Eighth Amendment; (c) defendants Zanchi and Sergeant Doe #5 for retaliation in violation
of the First Amendment; and (d) related state law claims;
3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; and
4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings,
including initiation of service.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 10, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?