Burnett v. Sedillo et al

Filing 15

ORDER Adopting 14 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER for this Action to Proceed Only Against Defendants Meier, Reynaga, Huckleberry, Garcia, and Dyer for Use of Excessive Force in Violation of the Eighth Amendment, and Dismissing all Other Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/30/17. R. Davidson (Correctional Officer), Nuckles, and K. Sedillo (Correctional Officer) terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS BURNETT, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 vs. K. SEDILLO, et al., Defendants. 1:16-cv-01672-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 14.) ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS MEIER, REYNAGA, HUCKLEBERRY, GARCIA, AND DYER, FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 18 19 20 Carlos Burnett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 commencing this action on November 3, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a 23 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 24 On September 25, 2017, the court entered findings and recommendations, 25 recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Meier, Reynaga, Huckleberry, 26 Garcia, and Dyer, for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that all 27 remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff was 28 provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen 1 1 days. The fourteen-day deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise 2 responded to the findings 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 entered by the Magistrate Judge on September 25, 2017, are ADOPTED in full; 2. This action now proceeds with Plaintiff’s original Complaint, filed on 11 November 3, 2016, against defendants Meier, Reynaga, Huckleberry, Garcia, 12 and Dyer, for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 13 3. All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action; 14 4. Plaintiff’s claims for violation of due process, failure to protect him, and 15 retaliation are DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a 16 claim; 17 5. for Plaintiff’s failure to state any cognizable claims against them; 18 19 6. The Clerk is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendants Sedillo, Davidson, and Nuckles on the court’s docket; and 20 21 Defendants Sedillo, Davidson, and Nuckles are DISMISSED from this action 7. 22 This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including service of process. 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ October 30, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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?