(PC) Tran v. Smith, et al., No. 1:2019cv00148 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/05/2019. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BINH CUONG TRAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 S. SMITH, et al., 15 No. 1:19-cv-00148-DAD-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 12) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Binh Cuong Tran is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 29, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and found 21 that it stated a cognizable claim against defendants Munsel and Jericoff for deliberate indifference 22 in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims against any 23 other defendants. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff was ordered to either file a first amended complaint or 24 notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claim. (Id. at 8–9.) On 25 August 7, 2019, plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable 26 claim identified by the court. (Doc. No. 11.) 27 28 Consequently, on August 9, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed on plaintiff’s complaint against defendants Munsel and 1 1 Jericoff for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that all other 2 claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 12.) The findings and recommendations were 3 served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 4 fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 5.) More than fourteen days have passed since the 5 findings and recommendations were served, and no objections have been filed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 7 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 8 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 9 10 Accordingly, 1. 11 12 The findings and recommendations issued on August 9, 2019 (Doc. No. 12) are adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s complaint, filed February 4, 2019 (Doc. 13 No. 1), against defendants Munsel and Jericoff for deliberate indifference in 14 violation of the Eighth Amendment; 15 3. 16 17 failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted; and 4. 18 19 20 21 All other claims and defendants are dismissed, with prejudice, based on plaintiff’s This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 5, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
