(PC) See v. Rivas

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MOU SENG SEE, No. 1:23-cv-01354-NODJ-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 13 v. DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS RIVAS, et al., (ECF No. 22) 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Mou Seng See is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19 On December 22, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed against Defendants R. Rivera and M. Dorado for deliberate indifference to the need for medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 18.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to deny screening requirements and standards by U.S. Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 19), and on January 4, 2024, filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 20).

27 In his objections, Plaintiff argued that his third and fourth claims, which were included on additional pages attached to the form complaint, were omitted from the screening order. (ECF No. 20.) Upon review of Plaintiff’s objections and the first amended complaint, the Magistrate Judge found that the third and fourth claims were inadvertently omitted from the Court’s screening and vacated the December 22, 2023 findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 22.)

4 The Magistrate Judge issued amended findings and recommendations that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants A. Rivas, P. Roman, R. Rivera, and M.

6 Dorado for deliberate indifference to the need for medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that all other claims be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) The amended findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired.

12 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 19 1. The amended findings and recommendations issued on January 10, 2024, (ECF No. 20 22), are adopted in full; 21 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed November 22, 22 2023, (ECF No. 11), against Defendants A. Rivas, P. Roman, R. Rivera, and M.

23 Dorado for deliberate indifference to the need for medical care in violation of the 24 Eight Amendment; 25 3. All other claims are dismissed from this action for failure to state claims upon which 26 relief may be granted; and /// /// ] 4. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with 2 this order.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 | DATED: February 21, 2024.

4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE