Demerson v. Warden of SATF et al

Filing 71

ORDER Adopting 66 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants from 56 Second Amended Complaint, and REFERRING MATTER back to Magistrate Judge to Initiate Service of Process signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/3/2010. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Demerson v. Warden of SATF et al Doc. 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 / 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Entitled as a motion for reconsideration. Disagreement with findings and recommendations is voiced via o b je c tio n s , and Plaintiff's filing shall be treated as such. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EDWARD DEMERSON, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN OF SATF, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00250-LJO-SMS PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FROM SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO INITIATE SERVICE OF PROCESS (Docs. 56 and 66) Plaintiff Edward Demerson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 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 September 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's second amended complaint and issued a findings and recommendations recommended dismissal of certain claims and parties. After obtaining an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a timely objection on November 1, 2010.1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. /// /// 1 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 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 2. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 1, 2010, is adopted in full; This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed June 2, 2009, against Defendants Curtiss, Renya, and Morgan on Plaintiff's excessive force claim; and against Defendants Curtiss, Renya, and Reynoso on Plaintiff's failure-toprotect claim; 3. Plaintiff's due process, conspiracy, retaliation, and medical care claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 4. Defendants Woodford, Grannis, Adams, Clark, Hense, Diaz, Wan, Alva, Gallagher, Pineda, Odle, Davis, Munoz, Padilla, and Hernandez are dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims against them; and 5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 November 3, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?