(PC) Delgado v. CDCR Medical Health Care Department, et al, No. 2:2010cv02379 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/1/2010 ORDERING the clerk to randomly assign a district judge to this case; and RECOMMENDING that dfts CDCR Medical Health Care Department, Daly, Verga, Val, Duk, Liamcar, D. Russell, J. Ball, Sahuto and Cardeno be dismissed w/out prejudice. Assigned and Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Delgado v. CDCR Medical Health Care Department, et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH DELGADO, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:10-cv-2379 KJN P vs. CDCR MEDICAL HEALTH CARE DEPARTMENT, et al., ORDER and 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 15 / 16 By order filed September 14, 2010 (Dkt. No. 6), this court screened plaintiff’s 17 original complaint (Dkt. No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found that the complaint 18 may state a cognizable claim against defendant Wedell, but does not state cognizable claims 19 against the other named defendants, viz., CDCR Medical Health Care Department, Daly, Verga, 20 Val, Duk, Liamcar, D. Russell, J. Ball, Sahuto and Cardeno. The court gave plaintiff the option 21 of proceeding on his original complaint against defendant Wedell, or filing an amended 22 complaint that may add cognizable claims against the other defendants. Plaintiff has chosen to 23 proceed on his original complaint, by submitting documents to effect service of process upon 24 defendant Wedell, and consenting to the dismissal, without prejudice, of the other named 25 defendants. (Dkt. No. 10) 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a district judge to this case. Additionally, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the following defendants be 4 dismissed without prejudice from this action: CDCR Medical Health Care Department, Daly, 5 Verga, Val, Duk, Liamcar, D. Russell, J. Ball, Sahuto and Cardeno. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 7 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days 8 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 9 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 10 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 11 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 12 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 DATED: October 1, 2010 14 15 16 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 delg2379.14option.f&r 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
