(PC) Edwards v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 18, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01180
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KADEEM EDWARDS, 1:23-cv-01180-NODJ-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND (ECF No. 13) 15 REHABILITATION,

16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action 19 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 4, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 22 recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 23 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Jane Doe L.V.N., the 24 remaining claims to be dismissed, and that Defendants California Department of Corrections and 25 Rehabilitation and John Does 1 through 10 be dismissed from the action. (ECF No. 13.) The 26 findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided Plaintiff 14 days to file 27 objections thereto. (Id. at 2.) More than 14 days have elapsed, and no objections have been filed. 28 // 1 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 2 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 3 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 4 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 5 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 6 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 4, 2023 (ECF No. 13) are 9 adopted in full; 10 2. This action proceeds only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 11 to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Jane Doe L.V.N.; 12 3. Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and John Does 13 1 through 10 are dismissed from this action; 14 4. The remaining claims in the complaint are dismissed; and 15 5. This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 16 DATED: January 18, 2024. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28