(PC) Collins v. McCabe

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARNELL C. COLLINS, 1:19-cv-00458-AWI-GSA-PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 13 RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION v. PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS 14 McCABE AND BEREGOUSKAYA FOR CONALL McCABE, et al., INADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE UNDER 15 THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT Defendants. ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 16 BE DISMISSED 17 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 19 Larnell C. Collins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.)

22 The Complaint names as defendants Dr. Conall McCabe, Dr. Jeffery Wang, and Dr. O.

23 Beregouskaya, and brings medical claims under the Eighth Amendment, claims for violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and claims for violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

26 On May 20, 2020, the court screened the Complaint and found that it states cognizable medical claims against defendants McCabe and Beregouskaya, but no other claims against any of the Defendants. (ECF No. 9.) On May 20, 2020, the court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a First Amended Complaint, or (2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court. (Id.) 3 On June 11, 2020, Plaintiff notified the court that he does not wish to amend the Complaint and is willing to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 10.)

6 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. This action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical claims against 8 defendants McCabe and Beregouskaya; 9 2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; 10 3. Plaintiff’s claims for violation of due process and equal protection be dismissed 11 from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief 12 may be granted; 13 4. Defendant Wang be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state 14 any claims against him upon which relief may be granted; and 15 5. This case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, 16 including initiation of service of process.

17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 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.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

23 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: June 12, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE