Opinion
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00232-AWI-GBC (PC)
01-03-2012
SIMON CAZARES, Plaintiff, v. JAMES A. YATES, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS TAREK AND COLEMAN FOR DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE AND RECOMMENDING THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS
Plaintiff Simon Cazares ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 15, 2008, Plaintiff filed the original complaint. Doc. 1. On March 18, 2010, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Doc. 6. On April 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint. Doc. 9. The Court screened Plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that Plaintiff only stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Tarek and Coleman for deliberate indifference of a serious medical need. Doc. 12. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either address the shortcomings of the complaint through amendment or to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims. Doc. 12. On December 27, 2011, Plaintiff gave notice of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Tarek and Coleman. Doc. 13.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action proceed against Defendants Tarek and Coleman for violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference of a serious medical need; and
2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action.
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)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE