Johnson v. Cate et al

Filing 23

ORDER Adopting 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In Part and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/20/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

1:10-cv-0803-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART AND
DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS

MATHEW CATE, et al.,
(ECF No. 20)

11

Defendants.

12
13

_______________________________/

14
15

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

17

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

18

On May 25, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations,

19

recommending dismissal of certain of Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff

20

has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations, in which he requests that the Court

21

dismiss Defendants Cate and Kern County from this action without prejudice. (ECF No. 21.)

22

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule 305, this

23

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. After reviewing Plaintiff’s objections, the

24

Court finds that they have merit and will dismiss these claims and Defendants without prejudice.

25

At this time, the court will not prohibit Plaintiff from the possibility of amending the complaint

26

if future discovery links other Defendants to the causes of action.

27

///

28

///
///

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 25, 2012, are adopted in part;

3

2.

Plaintiff may proceed on his Eighth Amendment and negligence claims against

4

Defendant Harrington;

5

3.

6

prejudice; and

7
8

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Cate and Kern County are dismissed without

4.

Defendants Cate and Kern County are dismissed from this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated:
0m8i78

August 20, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-