(PC) Rysedorph v. John ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED KRISTOPHER RYSEDORPH, No. 1:23-cv-00251-NODJ-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 13 v. DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 14 JOHN, et al., (ECF No. 30) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jared Kristopher Rysedorph is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On December 29, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s second 20 amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed against 21 Defendants Randy Le and Anu Banerjee for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of 22 the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 30.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that all other 23 claims and defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief 24 may be granted. (Id. at 15.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 25 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) 26 No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 27 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 28 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 1 || denovo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 2 || by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 3 || ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 4 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 6 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 29, 2023, (ECF No. 30), are 7 adopted in full; 8 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed 9 November 16, 2023, (ECF No. 28), against Defendants Le and Banerjee for deliberate 10 indifference to the need for medical care in violation of the Eight Amendment; 11 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state 12 claims upon which relief may be granted; and 13 4. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with 14 this order. 15 | DATED: February 12, 2024. 16 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28