Colbert v. Chavez et al

Filing 20

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissing Certain Claims, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 4/30/13. Referred to Judge Ishii; Thirty-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE K. COLBERT,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
P. CHAVEZ, et al.,

Case No. 1:10-cv-00250-AWI-SAB
FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSING CERTAIN
CLAIMS
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff George K. Colbert (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on February 16,

19

2010. (ECF No. 1.) On March 15, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, and found that

20

it states (1) cognizable claims for excessive force against Defendants Chavez, Doucan, Lindsey,

21

Emard, Flores, Ramirez, and Farnsworth in violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights; and

22

2) cognizable claims against Defendants Chavez, Doucan, Lindsey, Emard, Flores, and Ramirez

23

for retaliation in violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. The Court found that Plaintiff’s

24

complaint failed to state any other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 18.)

25

Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his

26

willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. On April 25, 2013, Plaintiff

27

filed a notice stating that he does not wish to amend and is willing to proceed only on his

28

cognizable claims identified by the Court. (ECF No. 19.)
1

1

Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s notice, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

2

1.

3

This action shall proceed as one for damages against Defendants Chavez, Doucan,
Lindsey, Emard, Flores, Ramirez and Farnsworth; and

4

2.

5

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims and First Amendment access to court claims
are dismissed for failure to state a claim.

6

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

7

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

8

after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections

9

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

10

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

11

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

12

(9th Cir. 1991).

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
Dated:
18

April 30, 2013

_

DEAC_Signature-END:

19

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
i1eed4

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2