Bishop v. Salcedo et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants 14 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/23/2019: This action shall proceed on plaintiff's complaint, filed May 25, 2018 1 against defendants Cross, Salcedo, Perez, and Nyugen for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT BISHOP,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

SALCEDO, et al.,

15

No. 1:18-cv-00714-DAD-BAM

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 14)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Robert Bishop is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

19

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

20

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

21

On December 28, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint

22

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it stated cognizable claims for deliberate indifference to

23

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Cross, Salcedo,

24

Perez, and Nyugen, but failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff was

25

ordered to either file a first amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed

26

only on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order. (Doc. No. 11.) On January 28,

27

2019, plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims identified

28

by the court in the screening order. (Doc. No. 13.)
1

1

Accordingly, on January 30, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

2

recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s deliberate indifference

3

claims against defendants Cross, Salcedo, Perez, and Nyugen, and that all other claims and

4

defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 14.) The findings and recommendations were served on

5

plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days

6

after service. (Id. at 7.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been

7

filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

8
9
10

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

11

Accordingly,

12

1.

13
14

The findings and recommendations issued on January 30, 2019 (Doc. No. 14) are
adopted in full;

2.

This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s complaint, filed May 25, 2018 (Doc. No. 1)

15

against defendants Cross, Salcedo, Perez, and Nyugen for deliberate indifference

16

to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

17

3.

All other claims and defendants are dismissed with prejudice; and

18

4.

This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further

19
20
21
22

proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 23, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2