Stewart Manago v. City of Barstow et al

Filing 26

JUDGMENT by Judge Mark C. Scarsi, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED 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 Judgment for further details. Related to: R&R - Accepting Report and Recommendations, 25 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (es)

1

JS-6

2
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,
JUDGMENT

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

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

Pursuant to the Court’s Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of
U.S. Magistrate Judge, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED 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;
(b) the denial of medical care claims against all Defendants;
(c) the supervisory liability claims based on the extraction incident
against Defendants Cahow, Lansdown, and Faylor;
(3) the following § 1983 claims are dismissed without prejudice but
without leave to amend in this action:
1

1
2
3
4
5

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

6

Defendants Faylor, Ramirez, Jewsbury, and Vanderkallen;

7

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

8
9

and
(e) the retaliation claims against all Defendants.

10
11
12

DATED: September 14, 2022

______________________________
Mark C. Scarsi
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2