(PC) Sherman v. Gonzalez et al, No. 1:2009cv00420 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 8/26/09 1 : Recommending that Plaintiff's equal protection and retaliation claims be dismissed; Defendants Jones, Gonzales, Carrasco, Zanchi, Peterson, Worrell, Barrozo, and Hirsch be dismissed; Objections to F&R due by 9/29/2009. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Sherman v. Gonzalez et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BRANDON L. SHERMAN, 10 11 12 13 NO. 1:09 cv 00420 LJO YNP SMS (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. WILLIAM MCGUINNESS, M.D., et al., 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. On June 29, 2009, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s 18 complaint states cognizable claims against Defendants Walker, Rocha, Pinkerton, Martinez and 19 Rivera for violation of the Eighth Amendment, but does not state a cognizable against the remaining 20 defendants. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of 21 his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. On July 13, 2009, 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 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 27 1. Plaintiff’s equal protection and retaliation claims be dismissed. 28 2. Defendants Jones, Gonzales, Carrasco, Zanchi, Peterson, Worrell, Barrozo and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Hirsch be dismissed. 2 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 3 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty 4 (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 5 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 6 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 7 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 8 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: icido3 August 26, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
