(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)

Download PDF
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

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?