Reamel v. Harrington et al

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In Full that this Action Proceed Only Against Defendants Gonzalez and Martinez on Plaintiff's Denial of Access to Courts Claims and that all other Claim and Defendants be Dismissed signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/5/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REAMEL CURTIS, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff, vs. KELLI HARRINGTON, et al., Defendants. 1:15-cv-00553-LJO-EPG-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS GONZALEZ AND MARTINEZ ON PLAINTIFF=S DENIAL OF ACCESS TO COURTS CLAIMS AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED (ECF No. 15) Curtis Reamel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 28, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that this action should proceed on Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim against defendants Gonzalez and Burgarin. (ECF No. 15.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that 1) all remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; and 2) Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Id.) This was served on Plaintiff that same day and contained notice that any objections were to be 27 28 1 1 filed within twenty days. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file any objections and has agreed to proceed 2 only on his failure to protect claim (ECF No. 14). 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 28, 2016 (Doc. 15), are 5 adopted in full; 6 2. This action shall proceed only against defendants Gonzalez and Burgarin on Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim; 7 8 3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; and 9 4. Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force is dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. 10 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ December 5, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?