(PC) Houk v. Phillips

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEPHEN HOUK, Case No.: 1:23-cv-01540-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT ALVA FOLLOWING SCREENING BRYAN D. PHILLIPS, Warden, et al., (Doc. 11) 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff seeks to hold 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 failure to protect claim against Defendant Alvarado-Torres, that Defendant Alva be dismissed from the action, and that any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against any defendant be dismissed. (Doc. 11.) Further, the magistrate judge advised that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id. at 3, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). No objections were filed.

27 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this | Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court | ORDERS: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 13, 2024 (Doc. 11) are 4 ADOPTED IN FULL.

5 1. This action PROCEEDS only on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment failure to protect 6 claim against Defendant Alvarado-Torres.

7 2. Defendant Alva is DISMISSED from this action.

8 3. The remaining claims in Plaintiff's first amended complaint against any defendant are 9 DISMISSED.

10 4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. b IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 | Dated: _December 13, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE