(PC)Somerville v. Bettancourt

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD MICHAEL SOMERVILLE, Case No. 1:21-cv-01695-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS DEFENDANT 13 v. (Doc. 1) B. BETANCOURT, et al., 15 Defendants.

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 17 Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 19 Plaintiff Richard Michael Somerville is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened the complaint and found that it states a cognizable Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants Betancourt, Marquez, and Rios, Correctional Officers (“COs”) employed at Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”)–Corcoran. (Doc. 12.) However, the Court found that the allegations did not state a claim against the Warden of SATF. (Id.) In response to the screening order, Plaintiff elected to proceed on complaint as screened and agrees with dismissal of the Warden because he has no knowledge of the Warden’s direct involvement. (Doc. 14.)

27 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS the Warden of SATF as a 1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District | Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) days from | the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections | with the Court. The document should be titled, “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)).

8 The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a District Judge to this action.

9 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ August 14, 2023 | Word bo 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE