(PC) Coreas v. Miller et al, No. 1:2010cv00703 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/19/2011 recommending that certain claims and defendants be dismissed re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by German Coreas. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger; Objections to F&R due by 7/29/2011. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(PC) Coreas v. Miller et al Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERMAN COREAS, 12 13 14 Case No. 1:10-cv-00703 OWW JLT (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED vs. MILLER, et al., (Doc. 9) 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. By order filed July 5, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it states a 19 cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Miller for inadequate medical care related to 20 the defendant’s failure to provide dressing changes. (Doc. 8 at 7-8.) The Court also found, however, 21 that Plaintiff’s allegations failed to state a cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id. at 8-10.) 22 The Court therefore instructed Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he 23 wished to proceed only on the cognizable claim against Defendant Miller. (Id. at 10-11.) On July 15, 24 2011, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wished to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the 25 Court. (Doc. 9.) 26 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s July 5, 2011 screening order and because 27 Plaintiff has elected not to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in 28 its screening order, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Heberling, Neeley, Nicholas, and Enenmoh for 2 inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment be DISMISSED for 3 failure to state a claim; and 4 2. 5 This action be allowed to proceed on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Miller failed to provide dressing changes in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 7 to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within seven days after being served 8 with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Should 9 Plaintiff opt to file such a document, it should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 10 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that his failure to file objections within the specified time may 11 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: July 19, 2011 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.