Briones v. Pleasant Valley State Prison et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 40 ; ORDER for This Action to Proceed Only Against Defendants Moore, Hendricks, Hand, and Cole on Plaintiff's Excessive Force Claims, and DISMISSING All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/8/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOHNNY G. BRIONES,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

vs.
PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON,
et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 40.)
ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST
DEFENDANTS MOORE, HENDRICKS,
HAND, AND COLE ON PLAINTIFF=S
EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS, AND
DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS

17
18

Johnny G. Briones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on the Second Amended

20

Complaint filed by Plaintiff on February 13, 2015. (ECF No. 31.) The matter was referred to a

21

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

22

On May 9, 2016, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending that

23

this action proceed only against defendants Correctional Officers R. Moore, C. Hendricks, R.

24

Hand, and C. Cole, on Plaintiff=s excessive force claims, and that all other claims and

25

defendants be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (ECF No.

26

40.)

27

Recommendations within twenty days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise

28

responded to the Findings and Recommendations.

Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the Findings and

1

1

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

2

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

3

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

4

analysis.

5

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

6

1.

7
8

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on May 9,
2016, are ADOPTED in full;

2.

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed on

9

February 13, 2015, against Correctional Officers R. Moore, C. Hendricks, R.

10

Hand, and C. Cole, for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth

11

Amendment;

12

3.

All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;

13

4.

Plaintiff’s claims for supervisory liability, inadequate medical care, failure to

14

protect, Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests, and conspiracy

15

DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim;

16

5.

are

Defendants Warden Scott Frauenheim and the Doe Defendants are DISMISSED

17

from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief

18

may be granted against them; and

19

6.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of all defendants from this

20

action on the Court's docket, except defendants Moore, Hendricks, Hand, and

21

Cole.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

June 8, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2