Marsh v. Brown et al

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING 31 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED ONLY ON PLAINTIFFS CLAIM FOR DEPRIVATION OF OUTDOOR EXERCISE AGAINST DEFENDANTS ROHRANDANZ AND KANE FOR MONEY DAMAGES AND DISMISSING ALL REMAINING CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/11/2013. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

1:10-cv-02353-LJO-GSA-PC

LAWRENCE L. MARSH,
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 31.)

vs.
JERRY BROWN, et al.,

ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED
ONLY ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR
DEPRIVATION OF OUTDOOR EXERCISE
AGAINST DEFENDANTS ROHRANDANZ
AND KANE FOR MONEY DAMAGES,
AND DISMISSING ALL REMAINING
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Defendants.

16
17
18

ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21

Lawrence L. Marsh (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil

22

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

23

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

24

On January 4, 2013, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that

25

this case proceed on Plaintiff’s claim for deprivation of outdoor exercise against defendants

26

Rohrandanz and Kane for money damages, and dismissing all remaining claims and

27

defendants. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings

28

and recommendations within thirty days, and Plaintiff was granted an additional forty-five days
1

1

in which to file objections. (Doc. 34.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or requested

2

further extension of time.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

analysis.

7

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

8

1.

9
10

31, 2013, are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2.

11
12

This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim for deprivation of outdoor exercise
against defendants Rohrandanz and Kane for money damages;

3.

13
14

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on January

All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or for violation of Rule 18(a);

4.

Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force against defendant Montoya is DISMISSED

15

from this action, and defendant Montoya is DISMISSED from this action, under

16

Rule 18(a), without prejudice to filing a new civil rights complaint addressing

17

this claim;

18

5.

Plaintiff’s claims for conspiracy, retaliation, inadequate medical care, failure to

19

protect, and inadequate appeals process are DISMISSED from this action for

20

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983;

21

6.

22
23

Defendants Brown, Igbanosa, Lovell, Cano, Sing, and Genis are DISMISSED
from this action for failure to state any claims against them; and

7.

24

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,
including service of process.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

April 11, 2013
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

DEAC_Signature-END:

2

b9ed48bb

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
3