(PC) Leuelu v. Paul et al
Filing
26
ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 11/25/2024. Tarek Tadros, Chris Chung and Kern Valley State Prison terminated. Action is referred back to Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with this order. (Maldonado, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KENNETH LEUELU,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
PAUL, et al.,
No. 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS
Doc. 16
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff Kenneth Leuelu is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 26, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and found
20
Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Steven Paul for deliberate indifference to
21
medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment for Plaintiff’s post-surgery care but failed to
22
state any other cognizable claims for relief against any other defendant. Doc. 11. The Court
23
ordered Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to
24
proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court. Id. On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff
25
filed a notice that he did not wish to file an amended complaint and was willing to proceed on
26
only the cognizable claim against Defendant Paul. Doc. 12. He also provided his current
27
address. Id.
28
Accordingly, on May 16, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
1
1
that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Steven Paul for deliberate
2
indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment for Defendant’s post-surgery
3
care. Doc. 16. The magistrate judge further recommended that all other claims and defendants be
4
dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. Id. The
5
findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections
6
were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Id. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion
7
to appoint counsel on May 21, 2024, which the Court denied. See docket. Plaintiff did not file
8
any objections to the findings and recommendations and the deadline to do so has passed. Id.
9
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302, this Court
10
has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds
11
the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
12
13
14
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 16, 2024, (Doc. 16), are ADOPTED IN
FULL;
15
2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed January 8, 2024, (Doc. 1), against
16
Defendant Steven Paul for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the
17
Eighth Amendment for Plaintiff’s post-surgery care;
18
19
20
21
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state claims
upon which relief may be granted; and
4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for proceedings consistent
with this order.
22
23
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 25, 2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?