(PC) Murphy v. Clark

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN PAUL JONES MURPHY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00206-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 10 RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 11 DISMISSED K. CLARK, JR., et al., 12 (ECF NOS. 14 & 17) Defendants.

13 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 15 DISTRICT JUDGE 16 John Paul Jones Murphy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18 Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on March 1, 2019. (ECF No. 14). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 17). The Court found that only the following claims should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Amobi for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Sanchez, Rodriguez, Vang, and Aguirre for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Sanchez, Rodriguez, Vang, and Aguirre for negligence. (Id.).

25 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 18). On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff notified the || Court that he wants to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order.

2 || (ECF No. 18).

3 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on || January 21, 2020 (ECF No. 17), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to || proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 18), it is |} HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiffs 7 against defendant Amobi for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation || of the Eighth Amendment; Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Sanchez, Rodriguez, Vang, 9 Aguirre for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and Plaintiff's claims || against Defendants Sanchez, Rodriguez, Vang, and Aguirre for negligence.

11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen || (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file |] written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. || Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 |} (9th Cir. 1991)).

19 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district || judge to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 |! Dated: _ February 10, 2020 [see heey — 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE