Opinion
Case No. 1:17-cv-01632-AWI-JDP
09-06-2018
LOUIS A. ALARCON, Plaintiff, v. C. XOYOUDOM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED, EXCEPT FOR THOSE SANCTIONED BY THE SCREENING ORDER [ECF No. 13]
Plaintiff Louis A. Alarcon is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on December 7, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On August 17, 2018, the U.S. Magistrate Judge assigned to this case screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that he stated cognizable claims for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against C. Xoyoudom and S. Arreguin; unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. Xoyoudom and S. Arreguin; deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. Sisodia and P. Rouch; and discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA against C. Xoyoudom, P. Rouch, and C. Sisodia. (Doc. No. 10, at 1-2.) The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claims. (Id). The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the Court issuing Findings and Recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 18-19.) On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the screening order. (ECF No. 11.)
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that all claims and Defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff's claims for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against C. Xoyoudom and S. Arreguin; unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. Xoyoudom and S. Arreguin; deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. Sisodia and P. Rouch; and discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA against C. Xoyoudom, P. Rouch, and C. Sisodia. (Doc. No. 13.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) Fourteen days have passed, and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The August 17, 2018, Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 13) are adopted in full.
2. This action shall proceed against:
a. C. Xoyoudom and S. Arreguin for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
b. C. Sisodia and P. Rouch for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
c. C. Xoyoudom, P. Rouch, and C. Sisodia for discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 6, 2018
3. Defendants Bello, R. Ruiz, and Dr. Aye Khin (also known as K. Aye) are dismissed from the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE