(PC) Thomas v. Kern Valley State Prison ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD LEE THOMAS, Case No.: 1:21-cv-1675 JLT SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT 14 KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., TO UPDATE THE DOCKET 15 Defendants. (Doc. 17) 16 17 Richard Lee Thomas seeks to hold the defendants liable for civil rights violations pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found Plaintiff stated cognizable claim for: (1) excessive force in 20 violation of the Eighth Amendment against Peralta and Sandoval, and (2) failure to intervene 21 against Melendez. However, Plaintiff’s remaining claims were not cognizable. (Doc. 14.) 22 After Plaintiff notified the Court that he did not wish to amend the complaint (Doc. 15 at 23 5), the magistrate judge recommended the action proceed only on the cognizable claims against 24 Peralta, Sandoval, and Meledez; and all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. 17.) 25 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him any objections 26 must be filed within 14 days. (Id. at 2-3.) In addition, the Court informed Plaintiff that the 27 “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 3, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 1 | F.2d 1391, 1394 (th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so expired. 2 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. 3 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations ar 4 | supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued November 27, 2023 (Doc. 17) are 6 ADOPTED in full. 7 2. This action PROCEEDS only on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force 8 claims against Defendants Peralta and Sandoval and failure to intervene claim 9 against Defendant Melendez, as stated in the First Amended Complaint. 10 3. The remaining claims in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED. 11 4. The following defendants are DISMISSED from this action: 12 a. Kern Valley State Prison 13 b. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 14 c. People of the State of California 15 d. “Bertha” 16 e. J. Larez 17 f. J. Gurrez 18 g. “Pita” 19 h. Betanhurt 20 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the following names on the docket: 21 a. “Sandovn” be corrected to “Sandoval” 22 b. “Maendrez” be corrected to “Melendez” 23 6. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: _ December 22, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28