(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, AMENDED 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 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). Plaintiff failed to file objections by the relevant deadline, and the Court adopted the findings and recommendations on December 12, 2023. (Doc. 35.) However, Plaintiff submitted objections for mailing a few days late, on December 10, 2023. (Doc. 38, filed Dec. 13, 2023.) In an abundance of caution, the Court has considered the objections as though they had been timely filed and performed a renewed de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Having carefully reviewed the matter anew, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court again concludes the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued November 21, 2023 (Doc. 34) are 10 ADOPTED in full.

11 2. This action PROCEEDS on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to 12 serious medical needs claims against Defendants Fishburn, Merritt and Carlson, in 13 their individual capacities, First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant 14 Merritt, in her individual capacity, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause 15 claim against Defendant Carlson, in her individual capacity, and state law equal 16 protection clause claim against Defendant Carlson, in her individual capacity, pursuant 17 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18 3. The following Defendants are DISMISSED from this action: 19 a. Public Entity of CDCR in Corcoran Calif 20 b. Jessia Huffman 21 c. Registered Nurses at SATF 22 d. S. Thomas 23 e. E. Johnson 24 f. Melisa Fritz 25 g. Godwin Ugwueze 26 h. Clarence Cryer, Jr. 27 i. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 1 4. The remaining claims in Plaintiffs first amended complaint are DISMISSED.

2 5. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: _ December 19, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE