(PC) Eric O'Dell v. Cheryl Mims ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC O’DELL, Case No. 1:20-cv-00378-NONE-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 13 v. DEFENDANTS 14 C. MIMS, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO 16 FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING 17 30-DAY DEADLINE 18 19 On June 18, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 20 and found that it states cognizable claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and 21 intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant Mims, as well as cognizable claims 22 of medical negligence against Defendants Mims, Doe #1, and Doe #2. (Doc. 11.) The Court 23 found that Plaintiff’s remaining claims were not cognizable. (Id.) Therefore, the Court directed 24 Plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading or a notice that he 25 wishes to proceed only on the claims found cognizable and to dismiss the remaining claims and 26 defendants. (Id. at 11.) 27 On June 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a document in which he states that he “chooses to 1 set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 11), the Court RECOMMENDS that: 2 1. The claims in Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED, except for the (1) claim of 3 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant Mims, (2) claims of 4 medical negligence against Defendants Mims, Doe #1, and Doe #2, and (3) claim of 5 intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant Mims; and, 6 2. Defendants Harris, Ventis-Colon, Doe #3, and Doe #4 be DISMISSED. 7 Within 30 days of this order, Defendant Mims SHALL file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s 8 complaint, addressing only the claims found cognizable by the Court. 9 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 10 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 11 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 12 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 13 Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 14 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 15 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: July 1, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27