Tennento v. Boston et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING in FULL the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING Plaintiff's Claim for a Violation of the Eighth Amendment 11 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/18/14: The action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff's claims for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TONY TENNENTO,

12
13
14

15
16
17

Plaintiffs,
v.
CHRISTOPHER BOSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00772 - LJO - JLT
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR A VIOLATION OF
THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT

Tony Tennento is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action for a violation of his

18

civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 23, 2014, the Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s

19

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915, and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for a

20

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 11 at 4.) Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommended

21

this claim be dismissed, and that the action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims for violations of his

22

rights arising under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. at 6.)

23

Plaintiff was granted fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendation of the

24

Magistrate Judge. (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed. Notably, prior to the issuance of the

25

Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff filed a notice of his willingness to proceed only on the

26

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. (Doc. 9.)

27
28

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United
School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the
1

1

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations

2

are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

3

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

4

1.

Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment is DISMISSED; and

5

2.

The action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

August 18, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2