Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01125/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01125-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON ERIK SCHMAUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILLIPS, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-1125 JLT SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, 

AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT 

TO UPDATE THE DOCKET

(Doc. 32)

Jason Erik Schmaus seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights 

while incarcerated at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. (See Doc. 19.) The magistrate 

judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found 

Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for deliberate indifference and retaliation against Dr. Aye. 

(Doc. 21 at 6-12.) However, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not state cognizable claims 

against the other defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff’s response to the Screening Order included a request 

that the action “proceed only on the deliberate indifference and retaliation claim on Dr. Aye.” 

(Doc. 30 at 4.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action proceed only on the 

cognizable claims, and that the Court dismiss all other claims and defendants. (Doc. 32.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 32 at 3.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the 

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver rights on appeal.” 

Case 1:23-cv-01125-JLT-SAB Document 33 Filed 10/16/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

(Id., quoting 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. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 19, 2024 (Doc. 32) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. This case SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference 

and retaliation against Defendant Dr. Aye.

3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED.

4. This action is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-01125-JLT-SAB Document 33 Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 2