(PC) Reyes-Villanueva v. Tyson Pogue

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 8, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00493
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MICHAEL REYES-VILLANUEVA, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-00493 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, DISMISSING 13 v. ) CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 TYSON POGUE, et al., ) UPDATE THE DOCKET ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 16) ) 16

17 Michael Reyes-Villanueva seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights 18 while housed as a pretrial detainee at the Madera County Jail. (See Docs. 1, 13.) The assigned 19 magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found Plaintiff 20 stated cognizable claims against: (1) Defendants Dr. Gustavenson, Nurse Debbie, RN Michelle, RN 21 Eva, RN Khloe, RN Maria, RN Victoria, and RN Kristen for violating his right to adequate medical 22 care under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) Defendant Pogue for violating his right to safety under 23 the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. 14.) In response to the Screening Order, Plaintiff stated that he 24 “wishes to proceed only on the claims the Court found cognizable.” (Doc. 15 at 1.) 25 After receiving Plaintiff’s notice, the magistrate judge issued Finding and Recommendations, 26 incorporating the findings made in the Screening Order and recommending the action proceed only on 27 the cognizable claims identified. (Doc. 16 at 2-3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge also recommended 28 all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Id.) 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 2 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 16 at 3.) The Court advised Plaintiff that “the failure to fi 3 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 4 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 5 || 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 December 4, 2024 (Doc. 16) are 10 ADOPTED in full. 11 2. This action SHALL proceed only on the following claims: (1) violations of Plaintiff's 12 right to adequate medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants L 13 Gustavenson, Nurse Debbie, RN Michelle, RN Eva, RN Khloe, RN Maria, RN Victor: 14 and RN Kristen; and (2) violation of Plaintiff's right to safety under the Fourteenth 15 Amendment against Defendant Pogue. 16 3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED. 17 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Sergeant Quick as a pending defendant on 18 the docket. 19 5. The matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 20 21 □□ IS SO ORDERED. 22 |! Dated: _ January 8, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan 23 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28