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)

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