Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01354/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01354-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Dorado
Defendant
A. Rivas
Defendant
R. Rivera
Defendant
P. Roman
Defendant
Mou Seng See
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

MOU SENG SEE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RIVAS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 1:23-cv-01354-NODJ-BAM (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS 

(ECF No. 22) 

Plaintiff Mou Seng See is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

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

On December 22, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended 

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

R. Rivera and M. Dorado for deliberate indifference to the need for medical care in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 18.) 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.) On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to deny screening 

requirements and standards by U.S. Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 19), and on January 4, 2024, 

filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 20). 

In his objections, Plaintiff argued that his third and fourth claims, which were included on 

additional pages attached to the form complaint, were omitted from the screening order. (ECF 

Case 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM Document 23 Filed 02/21/24 Page 1 of 3
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 

No. 20.) Upon review of Plaintiff’s objections and the first amended complaint, the Magistrate 

Judge found that the third and fourth claims were inadvertently omitted from the Court’s 

screening and vacated the December 22, 2023 findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 22.) 

The Magistrate Judge issued amended findings and recommendations that this action proceed on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants A. Rivas, P. Roman, R. Rivera, and M. 

Dorado for deliberate indifference to the need for medical care in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that all other claims be dismissed 

based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) The amended 

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 

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 amended findings and recommendations issued on January 10, 2024, (ECF No. 

22), are adopted in full; 

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed November 22, 

2023, (ECF No. 11), against Defendants A. Rivas, P. Roman, R. Rivera, and M. 

Dorado for deliberate indifference to the need for medical care in violation of the 

Eight Amendment; 

3. All other claims are dismissed from this action for failure to state claims upon which 

relief may be granted; and 

/// 

/// 

Case 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM Document 23 Filed 02/21/24 Page 2 of 3
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 

3 

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

this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 21, 2024. 

Case 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM Document 23 Filed 02/21/24 Page 3 of 3