(PC) Concepcion v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 1:2018cv01743 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Defendants J. Kelso and J. Carrick signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/31/2020. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 MICHELLE (a/k/a MYCHAL) CONCEPCION, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 v. Case No. 1:18-cv-01743-NONE-JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 19) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendants. 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 29, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 22 complaint (Doc. No. 15) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it states cognizable claims 23 under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Affordable Care Act, but it improperly 24 names J.C. Kelso and J. Carrick as defendants. (Doc. No. 16.) Pursuant to the screening order, 25 plaintiff filed a notice that he “wishes to proceed only on his claims against CDCR, CCHCS, Diaz 26 in his official capacity, and the Doe defendants and to dismiss Kelso and Carrick as defendants.” 27 (Doc. No. 18.) Accordingly, on February 13, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and 28 recommendations, recommending that Kelso and Carrick be dismissed. (Doc. No. 19.) The 1 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided 14 days to file objections 2 thereto. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has not filed objections and the time do so has passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 5 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, 7 1. 8 The findings and recommendations issued on February 13, 2020 (Doc. No. 19) are adopted in full; 9 2. Defendants J.C. Kelso and J. Carrick are dismissed; and, 10 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.