(PC) Concepcion v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHELLE (a/k/a MYCHAL) Case No. 1:18-cv-01743-NONE-JLT (PC) CONCEPCION, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plaintiff, TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT FOUND COGNIZABLE v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 14-DAY DEADLINE CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendants.

18 The Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 15) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A and found that it states cognizable claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments and the Affordable Care Act, but it improperly names J.C. Kelso and J. Carrick as defendants in their official capacities. (Doc. 16.) The Court therefore directed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in its order or notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only the claims found cognizable. (Id.) 24 In response to the Court’s screening order, Plaintiff filed a notice that he “wishes to proceed only on his claims against CDCR, CCHCS, Diaz in his official capacity, and the Doe defendants and to dismiss Kelso and Carrick as defendants.” (Doc. 18.) For this reason, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 16), the Court RECOMMENDS that 1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to a United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of 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.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: February 13, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE