Caputo v. Kern County Sheriff's Office
Filing
93
ORDER ADOPTING 81 Findings and Recommendations, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/25/18. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
BRIAN CAPUTO,
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
Case No. 1:15-cv-01008-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
v.
(ECF NOS. 43, 44, & 81)
GONZALES, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
Brian Caputo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
14
civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United
15
States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
16
On March 22, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and
17
recommendations, recommending that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for
18
Plaintiff’s claims for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights against
19
defendant Black and Doe Defendant(s), for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment
20
against defendant Gonzalez, and for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
21
against defendant Gonzalez. (ECF No. 81, p. 9).
22
The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
23
recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed, and no objections have been
24
filed.
25
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
26
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
27
1
28
Plaintiff was detained at Kern County Jail at the time of the incidents alleged in the complaint. He is
now incarcerated at FCI Marianna.
1
1
the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
2
analysis.
3
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
4
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on March 22,
5
2018, are ADOPTED IN FULL;
6
2. All claims and defendants are dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s claims for violation
7
of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights against defendant Black and Doe
8
Defendant(s), for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against defendant
9
Gonzalez, and for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against
10
11
defendant Gonzalez; and
3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
12
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
April 25, 2018
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?