(PC) Alcaraz v. Adams

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TEODORO SEVERIANO ALCARAZ, No. 2:24-cv-0776 TLN AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ADAMS, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 2, 2025, the court screened the complaint and found that plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claims to his health and safety against defendants Casillas, Fears, and Adams stated claims while his claims for deliberate indifference based on staff testing, medical deliberate indifference, equal protection, or due process claims were insufficient. ECF No. 8.

22 Plaintiff was given the option of amending the complaint or proceeding immediately on his cognizable claims against defendants Casillas, Fears, and Adams. Id. at 4-5. He was further advised that if he failed to notify the court how he wanted to proceed, the court would assume that he was choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and recommend dismissal without prejudice of plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claims based on staff testing, medical deliberate indifference, equal protection, and due process. Id. at 6. The time for plaintiff to notify the court as to how he wishes to proceed has now passed, and plaintiff has not made an election or | otherwise responded to the order.

2 Accordingly, IT Is RECOMMENDED that for the reasons set forth in the January 2, || 2025, Screening Order (ECF No. 8 at 4), plaintiff's claims of deliberate indifference based on || staff testing, medical deliberate indifference, equal protection, and due process be dismissed || without prejudice.

6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 | (9th Cir. 1991).

13 || DATED: March 11, 2025 ~ 14 Chttien— Chane ALLISON CLAIRE Id UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE