(PC) Rysedorph v. John

Opinion

JARED KRISTOPHER RYSEDORPH, No. 1:23-cv-00251-NODJ-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING v. DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS JOHN, et al., (ECF No. 30) Defendants. Plaintiff Jared Kristopher Rysedorph is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 29, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed against Defendants Randy Le and Anu Banerjee for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 30.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id. at 15.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed denovo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 29, 2023, (ECF No. 30), are adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed November 16, 2023, (ECF No. 28), against Defendants Le and Banerjee for deliberate indifference to the need for medical care in violation of the Eight Amendment; 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted; and 4. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with this order. DATED: February 12, 2024.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE