Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Simon Cazares v. James A. Yates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 5, 2012

SIMON CAZARES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES A. YATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER ADOPTING 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 Doc. 14

I. Procedural History

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. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 18, 2010, the Magistrate Judge dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Doc. 6. On April 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint. Doc. 9. The Magistrate Judge 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 to a serious medical need. Doc. 12. The Magistrate Judge 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. On January 4, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein. Doc. 14. The findings and recommendations was served on Plaintiff which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Doc. 14. Thirty days has since passed and to date Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

II. Conclusion and Order

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 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 are DISMISSED from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20120605

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.