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)

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