Stewart Manago v. City of Barstow et al

Filing 25

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Mark C. Scarsi re Report and Recommendation (Issued), 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: (1) the FAC (Dkt 20) is dismissed in its entirety; (2) the following § 1983 claims are dismissed with prejudice: (3)the following § 1983 claims are dismissed without prejudice but without leave to amend in this action: [See document for further information.] (es)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEWART MANAGO,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 5:21-cv-2032-MCS-KES

Plaintiff,
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

v.
CITY OF BARSTOW, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the
records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been
made (Dkt. 24). The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the United States Magistrate Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) the FAC (Dkt 20) is dismissed in its entirety;
(2) the following § 1983 claims are dismissed with prejudice:
(a) the excessive force claims based on the extraction incident
against all Defendants;
1

1

(b) the denial of medical care claims against all Defendants;

2

(c) the supervisory liability claims based on the extraction incident

3
4

against Defendants Cahow, Lansdown, and Faylor;
(3) the following § 1983 claims are dismissed without prejudice but

5

without leave to amend in this action:

6

(a) the excessive force claims based on the food port incident

7
8
9
10

against Defendants Cahow and Schirmbeck;
(b) failure to protect/supervisory liability claims based on the food
port incident against Defendants Cahow, Lansdown, and Faylor;
(c) the concealment or spoliation of evidence claims against

11

Defendants Faylor, Ramirez, Jewsbury, and Vanderkallen;

12

(d) the denial of access to the courts claims against all Defendants;

13
14

and
(e) the retaliation claims against all Defendants.

15
16
17

September 14, 2022
DATED: _______________

______________________________
Mark C. Scarsi
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2