(PC) Coreas v. Miller et al, No. 1:2010cv00703 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOOPTING 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 08/05/2011. D. Nicholas, S. Heberling, Enenmoh, and K. Neeley terminated from action. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Coreas v. Miller et al Doc. 12 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 Case No. 1:10-cv-00703 OWW JLT (PC) Plaintiff, 13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. (Doc. 10) 14 MILLER, et al., 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. On July 5, 2011, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found that it state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant 20 Miller for inadequate medical care. (Doc. 8.) The assigned Magistrate Judge also found, however, that 21 Plaintiff’s remaining allegations failed to state a cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id.) 22 Thus, the assigned Magistrate Judge instructed Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify 23 the Court that he wished to proceed only on the cognizable claim against Defendant Miller. (Id.) On 24 July 15, 2011, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wished to proceed only on the claim found cognizable 25 by the assigned Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 9.) Accordingly, on July 19, 2011, the assigned Magistrate 26 Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s 27 Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Miller. (Doc. 10.) 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302, the Court has conducted a de novo 2 review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and 3 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued July 19, 2011, are adopted in full; 6 2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Heberling, Neeley, Nicholas, and Enenmoh for 7 inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment are DISMISSED for 8 failure to state a claim; and 9 10 11 12 3. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Miller failed to provide dressing changes in violation of the Eighth Amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 5, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 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.