(PC) Harper v. Ramos

Opinion

DARCY AARON HARPER, 1:17-cv-00606-DAD-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION v. PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DR. RAMOS, DR. HTAY, AND DR. VARANASI FOR DR. RAMOS, et al., INADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT Defendants. ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS

Darcy Aaron Harper (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 9.) On October 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) The Second Amended Complaint names as defendants Dr. Ramos, Dr. Htay, RN Blocher, Dr. Varanasi, and RN Wee, and brings medical claims under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 11.) The court screened the Second Amended Complaint and found that it states cognizable claims under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Dr. Ramos, Dr. Htay, and Dr. Varanasi for providing inadequate medical care. On July 29, 2019, the court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a Third Amended Complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 12.) On August 7, 2019, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 13.) Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Dr. Ramos, Dr. Htay, and Dr. Varanasi for providing inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 3. Defendants RN Blocher and RN Wee be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; and 4. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE