(PC) Richardson v. Corizon Health Care et al, No. 1:2017cv00684 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/19/18. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED RICHARDSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. Case No. 1:17-cv-00684-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS CORIZON HEALTH CARE, et al., (ECF No. 16) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jared Richardson, also known as Janette Ryukuza Murakami (“Plaintiff”), is a 18 state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action while detained in the Fresno County Jail. On January 26, 2018, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 20 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated a cognizable claim against Defendants 22 Crossman and Vang for inadequate medical care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but 23 failed to state any other cognizable claims against any other defendants. The Magistrate Judge 24 therefore provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to file a second amended complaint or notify the 25 Court of her willingness to proceed only on her cognizable claims. (ECF No. 14.) On February 26 16, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court of her willingness to proceed only on her cognizable claims. 27 (ECF No. 15.) 28 /// 1 1 On February 22, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that: 2 (1) this action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on December 26, 2017, for 3 inadequate medical care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Crossman 4 and Vang; and (2) all other claims and Defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to 5 state claims upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 16.) The findings and 6 recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be 7 filed within fourteen (14) days after service. No objections have been filed, and the deadline in 8 which to do so has expired. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 10 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 11 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 22, 2018, (ECF No. 16), are 14 15 adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed December 26, 16 2017, (ECF No. 13), for inadequate medical care in violation of the Fourteenth 17 Amendment against Defendants Crossman and Vang; 18 3. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state 19 20 claims upon which relief may be granted; and 4. This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings 21 consistent with this order. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ March 19, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
