Windham v. Marin et al

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 04/22/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES W. WINDHAM,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
M. MARIN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01636-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS
(ECF Nos. 1, 12, 16)

Plaintiff Charles W. Windham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On March 6, 2015, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

22

1915A, and found that it stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force against

23

Defendants Uribe, Marin, Rasley, Contreras, Capano, Rubio and Doe #1 and for deliberate

24

indifference to serious medical needs against Defendants Navarro, Morales, Marin and Shiver, but

25

failed to state a cognizable claim against any other defendant. The Magistrate Judge therefore

26

provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint or notify the Court whether he

27

was agreeable to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 12.) On March 25, 2015, Plaintiff

28

notified the Court of his intention to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 14.)
1

On March 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that (1) this

1
2

action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on October 6, 2014, for violation of the Eighth

3

Amendment based on allegations of excessive force against Defendants Uribe, Marin, Rasley,

4

Contreras, Capano, Rubio and Doe #1 and based on allegations of deliberate indifference to serious

5

medical needs against Defendants Navarro, Morales, Marin and Shiver; (2) Plaintiff’s retaliation,

6

failure to intervene/protect and state law claims be dismissed from this action; and (3) Defendants

7

Davies, Beard, Dr. Doe #26, Brett and Does #2-25 be dismissed from this action. The Findings and

8

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

9

within fourteen (14) days after service. (ECF No. 16.) More than fourteen days have passed and no

10

objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

11
12

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and

13

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 30, 2015, are adopted in full;

16

2.

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on October 6, 2014, for

17

violation of the Eighth Amendment based on allegations of excessive force against Defendants Uribe,

18

Marin, Rasley, Contreras, Capano, Rubio and Doe #1 and based on allegations of deliberate

19

indifference to serious medical needs against Defendants Navarro, Morales, Marin and Shiver;
3.

20
21

Plaintiff’s retaliation, failure to intervene/protect, and state law claims are dismissed

from this action; and
4.

22

Defendants Davies, Beard, Dr. Doe #26, Brett and Does #2-25 are dismissed from this

23

action.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

April 22, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2