Vance Edward Johnson v. Barajas

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting 19 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER for this Action to Proceed Only Against Defendant Barajas on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Conditions of Confinement Claim; ORDER Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/20/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
BARAJAS, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

1:14-cv-01690-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 19.)
ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO
PROCEED ONLY AGAINST
DEFENDANT BARAJAS ON
PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH AMENDMENT
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
CLAIM
ORDER DISMISSING ALL OTHER
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

17
18
19

Plaintiff Vance Edward Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and

20

in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The case now

21

proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on August 21, 2015. (ECF No. 9.)

22

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

23

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

24

On September 21, 2016, the court entered findings and recommendations,

25

recommending that this action proceed only against defendant Barajas on Plaintiff’s Eighth

26

Amendment conditions of confinement claim, and that all other claims and defendants be

27

dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff

28

was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within
1

1

twenty days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings

2

and recommendations.

3

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

4

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

5

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

6

analysis.

7

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

8

1.

9
10

The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on
September 21, 2016, are ADOPTED in full;

2.

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed by

11

Plaintiff on August 21, 2015, against defendant Correctional Officer Barajas on

12

Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claim under the Eighth Amendment;

13

3.

All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;

14

4.

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim is dismissed from this
action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and

15
16

5.

17

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,
including initiation of service of process.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

October 20, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2