(PC) Hernandez v. Marcelo, et al., No. 1:2019cv01219 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/21/2020. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARINO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-01219-NONE-JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. J. MARCELO, et al., (Doc. No. 14) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Marino Antonio Hernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 2, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding that 21 plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) states cognizable claims of deliberate indifference to serious 22 medical needs under section 1983 and cognizable claims under the Americans with Disabilities 23 Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, but its retaliation claim is not cognizable. (Doc. No. 11.) 24 The magistrate judge further found that the complaint states cognizable claims against Defendants 25 J. Marcelo and N. Akabike, but not against Defendants C. Cryer, C. Mbadugha, or D. Oberst. 26 (Id.) Pursuant to the screening order, plaintiff filed a notice that he “he wishe[s] to proceed only 27 on his cognizable claims against J. Marcelo and … Akabike, and to dismiss Cryer, Mbadugha and 28 Oberst.” (Doc. No. 12.) 1 Accordingly, on March 17, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations, recommending that (1) Defendants Cryer, Mbadugha, and Oberst be dismissed 3 and (2) all claims be dismissed, except for plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference to serious 4 medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, set forth in Claim I of the complaint, and plaintiff’s 5 claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, set forth in Claim III. (Doc. No. 14.) The 6 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him fourteen (14) days to 7 file objections thereto. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has not filed objections and the time do so has passed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 9 10 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. 13 The findings and recommendations issued on March 17, 2020 (Doc. No. 14) are adopted in full; 14 2. Defendants Cryer, Mbadugha, and Oberst are dismissed; 15 3. All claims in plaintiff’s complaint are dismissed, except for claims of deliberate 16 indifference to serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, set forth in Claim I 17 of the complaint, and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 18 Rehabilitation Act, set forth in Claim III; and, 19 4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 21, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
