(PC) Rosenblum v. Ellis, et al, No. 1:2005cv01473 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Wunderlich on 2/10/09: Recommending that Defendants Vasquez and Robles be dismissed, and Plaintiff's due process and supervisory liability claims be dismissed as to 1 ; Objections to F&R due by 3/16/2009. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Rosenblum v. Ellis, et al Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 PHILLIP JON ROSEMBLUM, CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01473-LJO-WMW PC 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 v. 12 C/O ELLIS, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. July 31, 2008, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s 18 complaint states cognizable claims against Defendant Ellis for a violation of the Eighth Amendment, 19 but does not state a cognizable due process or supervisory liability claim against Defendants Vasquez 20 or Robles. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his 21 willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. On September 22, 2008, Plaintiff 22 notified the Court that he does not wish to amend and is willing to proceed on the claims found 23 cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, this Findings and Recommendations now issues. See Noll 24 v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and 25 opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim). 26 27 28 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Vasquez and Robles be dismissed, and Plaintiff’s due process and supervisory liability claims be dismissed.: These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 2 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 3 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 4 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 5 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 6 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: February 10, 2009 mmkd34 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 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.
