Opinion
CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01349-DAD-MJS (PC)
01-06-2016
MICHAEL RANGEL, Plaintiff, v. CHEN, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (1) FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT MANASRAH, AND (2) TO DISMISS ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 1)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 21, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1), and found that it stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Defendant Manasrah, but no other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was given the option either to file an amended complaint or to proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable. (Id.) Plaintiff responded that he wished to proceed only on the cognizable claim. (ECF No. 12.)
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff proceed on his Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim
against Defendant Manasrah;
2. All other claims asserted in the complaint and all other named Defendants be dismissed with prejudice,
3. Service be initiated on the following Defendants:
A. MANASRAH - Nurse at Kern Valley State Prison;.
4. The Clerk of the Court should send Plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed September 3, 2015;
5. Within thirty (30) days from the date of adoption of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff should complete and return to the Court the notice of submission of documents along with the following documents:
a. One completed summons,
b. One completed USM-285 form for the Defendant listed above,
c. Two (2) copies of the endorsed complaint filed September 3, 2015; and
6. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court should direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." A party may respond to another party's objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of that party's objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2016
/s/ Michael J . Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE