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)

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