Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00251/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00251-8/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 

JARED KRISTOPHER RYSEDORPH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOHN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 1:23-cv-00251-NODJ-BAM (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS 

(ECF No. 30) 

Plaintiff Jared Kristopher Rysedorph is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 29, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed against 

Defendants Randy Le and Anu Banerjee for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 30.) 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. at 15.) The 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. 

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 

Case 1:23-cv-00251-KES-BAM Document 31 Filed 02/12/24 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 

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. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 29, 2023, (ECF No. 30), are 

adopted in full; 

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed 

November 16, 2023, (ECF No. 28), against Defendants Le and Banerjee for deliberate 

indifference to the need for medical care in violation of the Eight Amendment; 

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state 

claims upon which relief may be granted; and 

4. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

DATED: February 12, 2024. 

Case 1:23-cv-00251-KES-BAM Document 31 Filed 02/12/24 Page 2 of 2