Hendrix v. Orozco-Soria, et al.

Filing 9

ORDER Directing Clerk's Office to Assign Matter to a District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this Action Proceed Only on Cognizable Eighth Amendment Claims and that all other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed re 1 Pr isoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/26/17. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. Case is assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. The New Case No. is: 1:17-cv-00750-DAD-MJS. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE D. HENDRIX, III, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CASE No. 1:17-cv-00750-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO ASSIGN MATTER TO A DISTRICT JUDGE OROZCO-SORIA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED v. Defendants. (ECF No. 1) 19 20 21 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 22 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 26, 2017, the Court 23 screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it states cognizable claims against 24 Defendant Astorga for excessive force and medical indifference in violation of the Eighth 25 Amendment, but no other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an 26 amended complaint or notify the Court in writing if he wished to proceed only on the 27 cognizable claims. (Id.) Plaintiff responded that he does not intend to amend and instead 28 wishes to proceed with the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 8.) 1 However, Plaintiff has not responded to Court orders requiring him to consent to 2 or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 3-1, 7). Accordingly, the Clerk’s 3 Office is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign this matter to a district judge pursuant 4 to Local Rule 120(e). 5 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. This action proceed only on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claims 7 against Defendant Astorga; and 8 2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action for failure 9 to state a claim. 10 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 11 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. 12 § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and 13 recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document 14 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 15 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 16 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 17 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 26, 2017 /s/ 21 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 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?