(PC) Talavera v. Ravijot

Opinion

JOSE ALFREDO TALAVERA, Case No. 1:23-cv-0595 JLT CDB (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING v. CERTAIN CLAIMS

DR. GILL RAVIJOT, et al., (Doc. 18)

Defendants. Jose Alfredo Talavera seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights under the Eighth Amendment while incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison. (See Doc. 15.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for: (1) deliberate indifference to his medical needs under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Ravijot, Kazris, and Rodriguez; and (2) excessive force under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Ramirez, Geston, and Navarro. However, Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against Kazris for excessive force. (Doc. 18 at 5-10.) Further, the magistrate judge noted the SAC did not include Francisco Hernandez, April Bravo, and Veronica Morales as defendants. (Id. at 10.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action proceed only as to the cognizable claims. (Id. at 11.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 3, 2025 (Doc. 18), are ADOPTED in full. 2. This action PROCEEDS only as to the following claims asserted in Plaintiff's second amended complaint (Doc. 15): (1) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Ravijot, Kazris, and Rodriguez; and (2) Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Ramirez, Geston, and Navarro. 3. All other claims are DISMISSED. 4. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. ig | Dated: _ February 24, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE