(PC) Schmaus v. Phillips

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JASON ERIK SCHMAUS, Case No. 1:23-cv-1125 JLT SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT 14 PHILLIPS, et al. TO UPDATE THE DOCKET 15 Defendants. (Doc. 32) 16 17 Jason Erik Schmaus seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights 18 while incarcerated at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. (See Doc. 19.) The magistrate 19 judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found 20 Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for deliberate indifference and retaliation against Dr. Aye. 21 (Doc. 21 at 6-12.) However, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not state cognizable claims 22 against the other defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff’s response to the Screening Order included a request 23 that the action “proceed only on the deliberate indifference and retaliation claim on Dr. Aye.” 24 (Doc. 30 at 4.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action proceed only on the 25 cognizable claims, and that the Court dismiss all other claims and defendants. (Doc. 32.) 26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 27 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 32 at 3.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the 28 “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver rights on appeal.” 1 | Ud., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 2 | objections, and the time to do so has passed. 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 4 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 5 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 19, 2024 (Doc. 32) are 7 ADOPTED in full. 8 2. This case SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff's claims for deliberate indifference 9 and retaliation against Defendant Dr. Aye. 10 3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED. 11 4. This action is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: _ October 16, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28