Vigil v. Yates, et al.

Filing 36

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 35 ; ORDER that this Action Proceed on the Third Amended Complaint against Defendant Valencia for Excessive Force; ORDER Dismissing Remaining Claims, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/26/16. Defendants Yates, Diez, Espino, King, OBrien, Howard, Solo, Das, and Brown Dismissed. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIE PAUL VIGIL,

Case No. 1:10-cv-01977-LJO-SAB-PC

12

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No.35)

13
14
15

v.
JAMES YATES, et al.,

ORDER THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED
ON THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
AGAINST DEFENDANT VALENCIA FOR
EXCESSIVE FORCE

Defendants.

16
ORDER DISMISSING REMAINING
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 18, 2016, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that this
action proceed on the third amended complaint against Defendant Valencia on Plaintiff’s claim
of excessive force, and that the remaining claims and Defendants be dismissed.Plaintiff was
provided an opportunity to file objections within thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to
the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this

28

1

1 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
2 Court finds the record to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
3

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

4

1.

The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on March 18,

5 2016, are adopted in full;
6

2.

This action proceeds on the third amended complaint against Defendant C/O

7 Valencia on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force.
8

3.

Defendants Yates, Diez, Espino, King, O’Brien, Howard, Solo, Das, and Brown

9 are dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against them;
10

4.

Plaintiff’s medical care claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim; and

11

5.

This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for service of process of the third

12 amended complaint.
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

April 26, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2