(PC) Dixon v. CDCR ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DELSHON DIXON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00954-KES-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 13 v. CERTAIN PARTIES 14 CDCR, et al., (Doc. 12) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Delshon Dixon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma paupers in this 20 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On August 21, 2024, the 21 assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order finding plaintiff’s complaint plausibly alleges 22 Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against defendants 23 Thompson and Dewitt but fails to allege cognizable claims against defendants CDCR and Warden 24 Pfeiffer. Doc. 7 at 10. Plaintiff was ordered, within 30 days of the date of service of the 25 screening order, to either: (1) file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in 26 the screening order; or (2) notify the court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended 27 complaint and wishes to proceed only against defendants Thomas and Dewitt on his Eighth Amendment claims. Id. Thereafter, plaintiff filed two responses to the screening order indicating 1 | that he wished to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Thomas and 2 | Dewitt. Docs. 9, 10. 3 On September 6, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 4 | recommendations to dismiss certain parties. Doc. 12. The findings and recommendations 5 | advised plaintiff that he must file any objections within 14 days after service of the order and that 6 | the failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Jd. 7 | at 2 (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 8 | 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). Plaintiff did not file objections and the deadline to do so has 9 | passed.! 10 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court has conducted a de novo review of 11 this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to 12 || be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 6, 2024, Doc. 12, are 14 ADOPTED in full; 15 2. This action shall PROCEED only on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate 16 indifference to serious medical needs against defendants Thompson and Dewitt; 17 3. Defendants CDCR and Warden C. Pfeiffer are DISMISSED from this action; and 18 4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 19 consistent with this order. 20 21 92 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 23 Dated: _ October 17, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 J — SSS 7 ‘On October 3, 2024, plaintiff filed a document with the court docketed as objections to findings and recommendations. Doc. 13. In that document, plaintiff seeks clarification as to the status of 28 the defendants. At the time the findings and recommendations were issued, this action was at the screening stage and defendants have not yet been served.