(PC) Spencer v. Sherman

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDWARD B. SPENCER, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01551-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT SHERMAN STUART SHERMAN, et al., (Doc. 20) 15 Defendants.

17 Edward Spencer seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights while incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. (See generally Doc. 16.) 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 failure to protect against Defendant Lopez. (Doc. 17 at 4-10.) However, the magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against Defendant Sherman, the warden at SATF.

23 (Id. at 8-9.) In response to the Screening Order, Plaintiff indicated his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claim. (Doc. 18.)

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 claim.

27 (Doc. 20.) In addition, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss Warden Sherman as a defendant and 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. 20 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.” (7d. at 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. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 16, 2025 (Doc. 20) are 10 ADOPTED in full.

11 2. This action PROCEEDS only on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment failure to protect 12 claim against Defendant D. Lopez.

13 3. Stuart Sherman is DISMISSED as a defendant from this action.

14 4. Any remaining claims in Plaintiff's first amended complaint are DISMISSED.

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

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

1g Dated: _June 12, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE