(PC) Avila v. Felder

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10

11 ANDREW AVILA, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-1510 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ) CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS ) 14 FELDER, et al., ) (Doc. 40) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16

17 Andrew Avila seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while Plaintiff 18 was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. (See generally Doc. 36.) The magistrate judge screened 19 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found he stated a 20 cognizable claim against Michael Felder for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth 21 Amendment but failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Doc. 37 at 5-10.) Plaintiff responded to 22 the Screening Order by notifying the Court that he was willing to proceed only on the cognizable claim. 23 (Doc. 39 at 1.) 24 The magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, reiterating the findings in the 25 Court’s Screening Order, and recommending the action proceed on the cognizable claim. (Doc. 40 at 26 5-10.) Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended: (1) the action proceed “against Defendant 27 Michael A. Felder for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment;” 28 and (2) the Court dismiss all other claims and defendants. (Id. at 10.) 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 2 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 40 at 11.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 3 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’ 4 || factual findings’ on appeal.” Ud., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 5 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 6 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 7 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 8 || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 15, 2025 (Doc. 40) are ADOPTED in 10 full. 11 2. The action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Michael A. 12 Felder for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth 13 Amendment, as stated in the second amended complaint (Doc. 36). 14 3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from the action for failure to state a 15 cognizable claim. 16 18 || Dated: _ August 7, 2025 ( Li pA LU. wan 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28