(PC) Cuellar v. Madera County Department of Corrections Health Care Provider

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that this actionproceed on plaintiffs deliberate indifference claim against defendantsDr. Gustaveson and nurse Debbie, all other Defendants are Dismissed from this action; matter referred back to Magistrate Judge, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/13/2020. (Gustaveson and Nurse Debbie added; Madera County Department of Corrections Health Care Provider terminated) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRAVIS JUSTIN CUELLAR,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 1:20-cv-00960-NONE-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 13)

19

Plaintiff Travis Justin Cuellar is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

21

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

22

On September 9, 2020, the magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and

23

found that plaintiff stated a cognizable deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Dr.

24

Gustaveson and nurse Debbie. (Doc. No. 9.) However, plaintiff was advised that he failed to state

25

any other cognizable claims against any other defendant. (Id.) On September 18, 2020, plaintiff filed

26

a notice indicating that he wishes to proceed on the claim found to be cognizable in the screening

27

order and to dismiss all other defendants. (Doc. No. 11.) Accordingly, on September 22, 2020, the

28
1

1

assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed

2

on plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against defendants Dr. Gustaveson and nurse Debbie, and

3

all other defendants be dismissed from the action. (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and recommendations

4

were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were due within fourteen (14) days. (Id.)

5

Plaintiff did not file objections and the time to do so has expired.

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de

7

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and

8

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

9
10

Accordingly,
1.

adopted in full;

11
12

The findings and recommendations issued on September 22, 2020 (Doc. No. 13) are

2.

This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against defendants
Dr. Gustaveson and nurse Debbie;

13
14

3.

All other defendants are dismissed from the action; and

15

4.

The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 13, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2