ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 15)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff Joshua Davis Bland is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On August 8, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and found that plaintiff had stated cognizable claims for deliberate indifference to serious risk of harm under the Eighth Amendment against defendants M. Flores and M. Stane; harassment under the Eighth Amendment against defendant M. Flores; and conspiracy against M. Flores and M. Stane. (Doc. No. 11 at 19.) The assigned magistrate judge found that plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable within thirty (30) days after service of the screening order. (Id. at 19-21.) On August 20, 2019, plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims identified by the magistrate judge in the screening order. (Doc. No. 13.)

Consequently, on September 4, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff's claims for deliberate indifference to serious risk of harm under the Eighth Amendment against defendants M. Flores and M. Stane; harassment under the Eighth Amendment against defendant M. Flores; conspiracy against M. Flores and M. Stane; and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 15.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained noticed that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

IT IS SO ORDERED.