(PC) Wilson v. Meritt

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID WAYNE WILSON, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOLLOWING SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S LURA MERRITT, et al., FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 Defendants. (Doc. 34) 17 Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson seeks to hold the defendants liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 The magistrate judge recommended this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Fishburn, Merritt and Carlson, in their individual capacities; First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Merritt, in her individual capacity; Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause claim against Defendant Carlson, in her individual capacity; state law equal protection clause claim against Defendant Carlson, in her individual capacity; and that the remaining claims and defendants to be dismissed. (Doc. 34.) The magistrate judge advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.” (Id. at 18, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). To date, no objections have been filed.

2 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued November 21, 2023 (Doc. 34) are 7 ADOPTED in full.

8 2. This action PROCEEDS on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to 9 serious medical needs claims against Defendants Fishburn, Merritt and Carlson, in 10 their individual capacities; First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant 11 Merritt, in her individual capacity; Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause 12 claim against Defendant Carlson, in her individual capacity; and state law equal 13 protection clause claim against Defendant Carlson, in her individual capacity, pursuant 14 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

15 3. The following Defendants are DISMISSED from this action: 16 a. Public Entity of CDCR in Corcoran Calif 17 b. Jessia Huffman 18 c. Registered Nurses at SATF 19 d. S. Thomas 20 e. E. Johnson 21 f. Melisa Fritz 22 g. Godwin Ugwueze 23 h. Clarence Cryer, Jr; 24 i. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 25 j. Public Entity State Administration of Prisons in Sacramento CA 26 4. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint are DISMISSED.

27 /// 1 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: _ December 11, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE