Johnson v. Honnold
Filing
18
ORDER ADOPTING 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for Dismissal of Certain of Plaintiff's Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/4/2015. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,
CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS (PC)
13
15
16
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISMISSAL
OF CERTAIN OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff,
14
v.
S. HONNOLD,
(ECF No. 14)
Defendant.
17
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
19
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 6.) The matter was
20
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
21
Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
22
On
September
29,
2015,
the
Magistrate
Judge
issued
findings
and
23
recommendations (ECF No. 14) that (1) Plaintiff should proceed on Eighth Amendment
24
medical indifference claim against Defendant Honnold, and (2) all other claims asserted
25
in the Complaint and all other named Defendants should be dismissed. After filing a
26
notice with the Court agreeing to only proceed with his cognizable medical indifference
27
claim against Defendant Honnold (ECF No. 13.), Plaintiff objected to the Findings and
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Recommendations arguing that he had stated a cognizable retaliation claim against
Defendant. (ECF No. 15.) The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to clarify his position.
(ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff has indicated that he agrees to proceed with only the medical
indifference claim against Defendant Honnold. (ECF No. 17.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has
conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by
proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 14), filed on September 29,
11
12
2015, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff is to proceed on the Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim
13
14
against Defendant Honnold; and
3. All other claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint and all other named
15
Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
December 4, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?