(PC) Paschall v. Johal

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LAMAR PASCHALL, Case No.: 1:24-cv-00154 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. DEFENDANT ARMANDEEP JOHAL FROM THIS ACTION AMANDEEP JOHAL, et al., (Doc. 16) 15 Defendants.

17 Lamar Paschall seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his constitutional rights while housed at Sierra Conservation Center. (See Doc. 12.) The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendants Fu, Smith, Sinclair, Jane Doe, and John Doe. (Doc. 13 at 4-10.) However, the magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against Defendant Johal, the Chief Medical Officer at the institution. (Id. at 10.) In response to the Screening Order, Plaintiff indicated his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (Doc. 14.)

25 Following receipt of the notice from Plaintiff, the magistrate judge reiterated the findings made in the Screening Order and recommended the action proceed only on the cognizable claims.

27 (Doc. 16.) In addition, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss Defendant Johal as a defendant and dismiss the remaining claims in the complaint. (Id. at 2.)

1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 16 at 2.) The Court advised him that the “failure | to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on | appeal.” (/d. at 2-3, 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 conducted a de novo review of this case.

7 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court 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 on May 13, 2025 (Doc. 16) 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 Fu, Smith, Sinclair, Jane Doe, and 13 John Doe.

14 3. Defendant Amandeep Johal is DISMISSED from this action.

15 4. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff's complaint are DISMISSED.

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

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 | Dated: _June 3, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE