Fearence v. Schulteis et al

Filing 48

ORDER Adopting 45 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER for this Action to Proceed on Plaintiff's 44 Second Amended Complaint on Claims Found Cognizable by the Court, and DISMISSING all other Claims; ORDER for Defendants to File Answer to Second Amended Complaint within Thirty Days signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/25/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAQUES FEARENCE,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
L. L. SHULTEIS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

1:08-cv-00615-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 45.)
ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO
PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT ON CLAIMS
FOUND COGNIZABLE BY THE COURT,
AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS
ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

18
19
20

Jacques Fearance (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

21

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

22

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23

On April 1, 2013, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that

24

this action proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court in the Second Amended

25

Complaint, and that all other claims be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to

26

state a claim. (Doc. 45.) On May 10, 2013, the parties were provided an opportunity to file

27

objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. (Doc. 47.) To date, no

28

objections have been filed.
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

2

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

3

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

4

analysis.

5

III.

CONCLUSION

6

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

7

1.

8

The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 1,
2013, are ADOPTED in full;

9

2.

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed on

10

March 25, 2013, against defendants Hopkins and Busby for use of excessive

11

force; against defendants Hopkins, Davis, Duffy, and John Doe for failure to

12

protect Plaintiff; and against defendants Hopkins, Busby, Davis, Duffy, and

13

John Doe for conspiracy to use excessive force against Plaintiff, for damages

14

only;

15

3.

All other claims are dismissed from this action;

16

4.

Plaintiff’s claims for verbal harassment and injunctive relief are dismissed from
this action; and

17

5.

18

Defendants are required to file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint
within thirty days of the date of service of this order.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

23
24
25

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

June 25, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

26
27
28
2