Fearence v. Schulteis et al

Filing 67

ORDER Adopting 65 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER for this Action to Proceed Only Against Defendants Hopkins and Busby for Use of Excessive Force, Against Defendants Hopkins, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for Failure to Protect Plaintiff, and Against Defendants Hopkins, Busby, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for Conspiracy to Use Excessive Force; ORDER DISMISSING all other Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/13/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8

JACQUES FEARANCE,

9
10

1:08-cv-00615-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 65.)

vs.

11

L. L. SCHULTEIS, et al.,

12

Defendants.

ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST
DEFENDANTS HOPKINS AND BUSBY
FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE,
AGAINST DEFENDANTS HOPKINS,
DAVIS, DUFFY, AND BECKETT FOR
FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF,
AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS
HOPKINS, BUSBY, DAVIS, DUFFY,
AND BECKETT FOR CONSPIRACY TO
USE EXCESSIVE FORCE

13
14
15
16
17

ORDER DISMISSING ALL OTHER
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

18
19

Jacques Fearance (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

20

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action

21

on May 1, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the Third Amended Complaint filed by

22

Plaintiff on November 22, 2013. (Doc. 64.) The matter was referred to a United States

23

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

24

On December 6, 2013, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations,

25

recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Hopkins and Busby for use of

26

excessive force; against defendants Hopkins, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for failure to protect

27

Plaintiff; and against defendants Hopkins, Busby, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for conspiracy to

28

use excessive force. (Doc. 65.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the
1

1

Findings and Recommendations within thirty days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections

2

or otherwise responded to the Findings and Recommendations.

3

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

4

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

5

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

6

analysis.

7

III.

CONCLUSION

8

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

9

1.

10
11

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on
December 6, 2013, are ADOPTED in full;

2.

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

12

November 22, 2013, against defendants Hopkins and Busby for use of excessive

13

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

14

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

15

Beckett for conspiracy to use excessive force;

16

3.

All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;

17

4.

Plaintiff’s claims for verbal harassment and injunctive relief are dismissed from
this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983; and

18
19

5.

20

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings
including service of process upon defendant Beckett.

21
22

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 13, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2