(PC) Shepard v. Kelso

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/31/2021 ADOPTING 13 The Findings and Recommendations in full. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference based on failure to tr eat his neuropathy and damaged cornea against defendants Mohyuddin, Malakkla, and Adams. All other claims in the complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice. The court concludes after reviewing the file that the appointment of counsel to represent Pl aintiff is appropriate for the limited purpose of assisting plaintiff with discovery and pretrial motion practice, if any. The matter is referred to the supervisor of this court's pro bono panel, Sujean Park Castelhano, to identify an appropriate attorney; and The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge to initiate service on defendants Mohyuddin, Malakkla, and Adams. (cc: Sujean Park Castelhano)(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL SHEPARD,

12

No. 2:20-cv-01445-KJM-JDP (PC)

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. KELSO, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

17
18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

19

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 11, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20
21

were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

22

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to

23

the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

24
25

602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed

26

de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law

27

by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court

28

/////
1

1

. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

2

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 11, 2021, are adopted in full;

5

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate

6

indifference based on failure to treat his neuropathy and damaged cornea against defendants

7

Mohyuddin, Malakkla, and Adams;

8

3. All other claims in the complaint are dismissed without prejudice;

9

4. The court concludes after reviewing the file that the appointment of counsel to

10

represent plaintiff is appropriate for the limited purpose of assisting plaintiff with discovery and

11

pretrial motion practice, if any. The matter is referred to the supervisor of this court’s pro bono

12

panel, Sujean Park Castelhano, to identify an appropriate attorney; and

13

5. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge to initiate service on

14

defendants Mohyuddin, Malakkla, and Adams.

15

DATED: March 31, 2021.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2