(PC) Luevano v. Mata

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL DAVID LUEVANO, Case No. 1:23-cv-01749 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., TO UPDATE THE DOCKET 15 Defendants. (Doc. 11) 17 Daniel David Luevano, a state prisoner incarcerated at Valley State Prison, asserts the defendants are liable for violations of his civil rights through their failure protect him from, and respond to, an attack by another inmate. (See generally Doc. 9.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found Plaintiff stated cognizable claims under the Eighth Amendment against correctional officers Mata1 and Navarro.

22 (Doc. 11 at 4-6.) However, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not state a cognizable claim against any other defendants, including the “Doe” officers. (Id. at 6.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action proceed only upon Plaintiff’s claims against Mata and Navarro, and all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Id. at 6-7.)

27 1 Plaintiff spelled the name of this correctional officer as both “Mata” and “Mota.” (Compare Doc. 9 at 1 with Doc. 9 at 4.) For the sake of clarity, the Court refers to the defendant with the spelling used in the caption of the amended complaint. (Id. at 1.)

1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the Plaintiff and notified him | that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 11 at 7.) The Court advised him that the | “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of nights on appeal.”

4 | Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file || objections, and the time to do so has passed.

6 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

7 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 31, 2024 (Doc. 11) are 10 ADOPTED in full.

11 2. This action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Mata 12 and Navarro for their delayed response to the attack once it began on Plaintiff, in 13 violation of the Eighth Amendment, as stated in the amended complaint (Doc. 9).

14 3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action for failure to 15 state claims upon which relief may be granted.

16 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket.

17 5. This action is referred to the magistrate judge for proceedings.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

29 | Dated: _July 1, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE