Ransom v. Herrera et al

Filing 77

ORDER Adopting 76 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER For this Action to Proceed Against Defendants Brannum and Herrera on Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Claim, Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Claim Under Devereaux, Retaliation Claim, Section 1983 Malicious Prosecution Claim, and Conspiracy Claim, and Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/1/17. ; J. Castro (Lieutenant) terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LEONARD RANSOM, JR., 8 9 10 Plaintiff, v. DANNY HERRERA, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 15 16 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF NOS. 72 & 76) ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS BRANNUM AND HERRERA ON PLAINTIFF’S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS CLAIM UNDER DEVEREAUX, RETALIATION CLAIM, SECTION 1983 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM, AND CONSPIRACY CLAIM, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 17 Leonard Ransom, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second 19 Amended Complaint, which was filed on May 15, 2017. (ECF No. 72). The matter was 20 referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 21 Rule 302. 22 On June 30, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 23 recommendations, recommending that this action proceed against defendants Brannum and 24 Herrera on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim, Fourteenth 25 Amendment substantive due process claim under Devereaux, retaliation claim, section 1983 26 malicious prosecution claim, and conspiracy claim, and that all other claims and defendants be 27 dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 76). Both parties were provided an opportunity to file 28 1 1 objections to the findings and recommendations. No objections were filed. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 3 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 4 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 5 analysis. 6 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 7 1. 8 9 The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on June 30, 2017, are ADOPTED in full; 2. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10 72), against defendants Brannum and Herrera on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 11 Amendment procedural due process claim, Fourteenth Amendment substantive 12 due process claim under Devereaux, retaliation claim, section 1983 malicious 13 prosecution claim, and conspiracy claim; 14 3. 15 16 prejudice; 4. 17 18 All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action, with The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendant J. Castro on the Court’s docket; and 5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ August 1, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?