Richardson v. Corizon Health Care et al
Filing
18
ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/19/18. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JARED RICHARDSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
Case No. 1:17-cv-00684-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS
CORIZON HEALTH CARE, et al.,
(ECF No. 16)
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Jared Richardson, also known as Janette Ryukuza Murakami (“Plaintiff”), is a
18
state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
19
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action while detained in the Fresno County Jail.
On January 26, 2018, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint
20
21
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated a cognizable claim against Defendants
22
Crossman and Vang for inadequate medical care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but
23
failed to state any other cognizable claims against any other defendants. The Magistrate Judge
24
therefore provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to file a second amended complaint or notify the
25
Court of her willingness to proceed only on her cognizable claims. (ECF No. 14.) On February
26
16, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court of her willingness to proceed only on her cognizable claims.
27
(ECF No. 15.)
28
///
1
1
On February 22, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that:
2
(1) this action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on December 26, 2017, for
3
inadequate medical care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Crossman
4
and Vang; and (2) all other claims and Defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to
5
state claims upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 16.) The findings and
6
recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be
7
filed within fourteen (14) days after service. No objections have been filed, and the deadline in
8
which to do so has expired.
9
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
10
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
11
findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 22, 2018, (ECF No. 16), are
14
15
adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed December 26,
16
2017, (ECF No. 13), for inadequate medical care in violation of the Fourteenth
17
Amendment against Defendants Crossman and Vang;
18
3. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state
19
20
claims upon which relief may be granted; and
4. This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings
21
consistent with this order.
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
March 19, 2018
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?