Bradley v. Villa et al

Filing 50

ORDER Adopting 48 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER for this Action to Proceed Ony Against Defendant C/O L. Villa for Use of Excessive Force in Violation of the Eighth Amendment, and Dismissing all Other Claims and Defendants; Thirty Day Deadline for Defendant Villa to File Answer, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 07/31/14. Wood (Capt. ), S. Henderson (Lt. 1) and J. Hightower (Sgt. ) terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM BRADLEY,

12

1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 48.)

VILLA, et al.,

15

ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST
DEFENDANT C/O L. VILLA FOR USE
OF EXCESSIVE FORCE IN
VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING
ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS

Defendants.

16
17
18

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR
DEFENDANT VILLA TO FILE
ANSWER

19
20
21
22
23
24

William Bradley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

25

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

26

September 8, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the Third Amended Complaint filed

27

by Plaintiff on September 14, 2012. (Doc. 19.) The matter was referred to a United States

28

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

1

On June 25, 2014, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending

2

that this action proceed only against defendant Correctional Officer (“C/O”) L. Villa1 for use of

3

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants

4

be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 48.) Plaintiff

5

was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within

6

thirty days.

7

recommendations. (Doc. 49.)

On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice in support of the findings and

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

analysis.

12

III.

CONCLUSION

13

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

14

1.

15
16

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on June 25,
2014, are ADOPTED in full;

2.

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

17

September 14, 2012, against defendant C/O L. Villa for use of excessive force in

18

violation of the Eighth Amendment;

19

3.

All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;

20

4.

Defendants Henderson, Hightower, and Wood are DISMISSED from this action

21

based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted

22

against them;

23

5.

Plaintiff’s claim for failure to protect him is DISMISSED from this action,

24

based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

25

under § 1983;

26
1

27
28

The findings and recommendations refer to defendant “J. Villa.” (Doc. 48 at 1:22.) In some of his
complaints, Plaintiff refers to the defendant interchangeably as “J. Villa” and “L. Villa;” however, Plaintiff refers
to defendant as “L. Villa” throughout the Third Amended Complaint, and it appears from the record that
defendant’s name is “L. Villa,” not “J. Villa.”
2

1

6.

Henderson, and Wood from this action on the court’s docket; and

2
3

The Clerk is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendants Hightower,

7.

4

Defendant C/O L. Villa is required to file an Answer to the Third Amended
Complaint within thirty days of the date of service of this order.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 31, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3