(PC) Sharpe v. Sherman ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM SHARPE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00711-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS v. AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 14 STU SHERMAN, et al., (ECF NOS. 1 & 11) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 16 FOURTEEN DAYS 17 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 18 DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 Adam Sharpe (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 21 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on May 21, 2019, (ECF No. 1.) The 23 Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 11.) The Court found that only the following 24 claims should proceed past the screening stage: “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 25 in violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. Cryer, J. Lewis, and S. Gates, as well as a claim 26 for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against S. Smith.” (Id. at 2.) 27 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found 28 1 | cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the 2 | complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent 3 | with the screening order. (/d.) On November 27, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants 4 | to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the screening order. (ECF No. 12.) 5 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 6 | November 7, 2019 (ECF No. 11.), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 7 | proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 12.), it is HEREBY 8 | RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiffs claims for 9 | deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against C. 10 | Cryer, J. Lewis, and S. Gates and Plaintiffs claim for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth 11 | Amendment against S. Smith. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 13 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 14 | (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 15 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate judge’s 16 | Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 17 || specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 18 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 0 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 | Dated: _ December 4, 2019 [Je ey — 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28