(PC) Figueroa v. Navarro et al, No. 1:2020cv01254 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/12/2021. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Figueroa v. Navarro et al Doc. 18 Case 1:20-cv-01254-AWI-SKO Document 18 Filed 08/12/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN FIGUEROA, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:20-cv-01254-AWI-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. KEN CLARK, et al., (Doc. No. 13) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ruben Figueroa is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 June 14, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge filed a screening order, finding that 21 Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims of deliberate indifference against Defendants 22 Navarro, Phi, and Ramirez, but that its remaining claims are not cognizable. Doc. No. 8. The 23 magistrate judge directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his 24 pleading or to notify the court of his desire to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. Id. at 25 8-9. On July 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice “of his desire to proceed only on the claims found 26 cognizable.” Doc. No. 11. 27 28 Therefore, on July 7, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, recommending that (1) the defendants in this action be dismissed, except for Defendants Navarro, Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-01254-AWI-SKO Document 18 Filed 08/12/21 Page 2 of 2 1 Phi, and Ramirez, and (2) the claims in Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, except for its claims of 2 deliberate indifference to health or safety against Defendants Navarro, Phi, and Ramirez. Doc. 3 No. 13. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided him 14 days to 4 file objections thereto. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time to do so has 5 passed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and 8 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 9 10 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 11 12 ADOPTED in full; 2. 13 14 The findings and recommendations issued on July 7, 2021 (Doc. No. 13) are The defendants in this action are DISMISSED, except for Defendants Navarro, Phi, and Ramirez; 3. The claims in Plaintiff’s complaint are DISMISSED, except for its claims of 15 deliberate indifference to health or safety against Defendants Navarro, Phi, and 16 Ramirez, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 17 4. al.”; and, 18 19 The Clerk of the Court is directed to rename this case “Figueroa v. Navarro, et 5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 12, 2021 SENIOR 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.
