Mayora v. Eslick et al

Filing 25

ORDER Adopting 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Due Process and Retaliation Claims, DISMISSING Defendants Allen and Duncan, and REFERRING Matter to Magistrate Judge for Service of Amended Complaint signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/16/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOSE AUGUSTINE MAYORGA,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ESLICK, et al.,
Defendants.

14

Case No. 1:14-cv-00099-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING DUE
PROCESS AND RETALIATION CLAIMS,
DISMISSING DEFENDANTS ALLEN AND
DUNCAN, AND REFERRING MATTER TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR SERVICE OF
AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Docs. 21 and 22)

15
_____________________________________/
16
17

Plaintiff Jose Augustine Mayorga, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 23, 2014. The
19 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
20 Local Rule 302.
21

In a Findings and Recommendations filed on June 29, 2015, the Magistrate Judge screened

22 Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and recommended this action
23 proceed only on his Eighth Amendment claims. On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of non24 opposition. Local Rule 304(b).
25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a

26 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings
27 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
28 ///

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on June 29, 2015, is adopted in full;

3

2.

This action for damages shall proceed on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against

4

Defendants Eslick, Paugh, and Knigge for use of excessive force, in violation of the

5

Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Eslick, Jane Doe 2, Mason, Knigge,

6

Broderick, and Pilcher for denial of medical care, in violation of the Eighth

7

Amendment;

8

3.

9

Plaintiff’s due process claim is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a
claim;

10

4.

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim;

11

5.

Defendants Allen and Duncan are dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any

12
13

claims against them; and
6.

This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 16, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2