Hamilton v. Lara et al
ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 15 ; ORDER for This Action to Proceed Only Against Defendants Gurrero and Arenivas, on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Excessive Force Claims, and Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 8/6/2010. (Verduzco, M)
(PC) Hamilton v. Lara et al
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _____________________________/ Eugene Hamilton ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 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 June 23, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Gurrero and Arenivas on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. To date, plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations. 1 vs. LARA, et al., EUGENE HAMILTON, Plaintiff, 1:08-cv-01967-OWW-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15.) ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS GURRERO AND ARENIVAS, ON PLAINTIFF'S EIGHTH AMENDMENT EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, 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 proper analysis. Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on June 23, 2010, are adopted in full; 2. This action now proceeds only against defendants Gurrero and Arenivas, on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims; 3. 4. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; Defendants Lara, Cohen, Braswell, Hicinbothom, Cano, Quinones, Junious, Moon, Garnett, Wang, Labelle, Minn, Jalisman, McGuinness, Hall, Grannis, Chrones, Adams, Tipton, Wilkins, Schutt, Schape, Doering, and Does 1-10 are dismissed from this action based on plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them; 5. Plaintiff's claims for retaliation, due process, inadequate medical care, appeals process violations, equal protection, all acts occurring at Lancaster State Prison, claims for injunctive relief, and deprivation of yard time, showers, meals, and access to medications are dismissed based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983; and 6. The Clerk is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendants Lara, Cohen, Braswell, Hicinbothom, Cano, Quinones, Junious, Moon, Garnett, Wang, Labelle, Minn, Jalisman, McGuinness, Hall, Grannis, Chrones, Adams, Tipton, Wilkins, Schutt, Schape, and Doering on the court's docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 6, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?