(PC) Harper v. Ramos ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARCY AARON HARPER, 1:17-cv-00606-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 13 v. PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DR. RAMOS, DR. HTAY, AND DR. VARANASI FOR 14 DR. RAMOS, et al., INADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT 15 Defendants. ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 17 18 19 Darcy Aaron Harper (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed the 21 Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed the First 22 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 9.) On October 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended 23 Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) 24 The Second Amended Complaint names as defendants Dr. Ramos, Dr. Htay, RN Blocher, 25 Dr. Varanasi, and RN Wee, and brings medical claims under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 26 11.) The court screened the Second Amended Complaint and found that it states cognizable 27 claims under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Dr. Ramos, Dr. Htay, and Dr. Varanasi 28 for providing inadequate medical care. On July 29, 2019, the court issued a screening order 1 requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a Third Amended Complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is 2 willing to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 12.) 3 On August 7, 2019, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only with the 4 claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 13.) 5 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Dr. Ramos, Dr. 7 Htay, and Dr. Varanasi for providing inadequate medical care in violation of the 8 Eighth Amendment; 9 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 10 3. Defendants RN Blocher and RN Wee be dismissed from this action based on 11 Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them upon which relief may be 12 granted under § 1983; and 13 4. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 14 including initiation of service of process. 15 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 16 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 17 fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 18 may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 19 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 20 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 21 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: August 13, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28