Monson v. Unknown Floor Officers

Filing 12

ORDER Adopting 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER for this Action to Proceed Against Defendants Unknown Officer 1 and Unknown Officer 2 for Failure to Protect in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and DISMISSING all other Claims and Defendants with Prejudice signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/17/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TRENELL MONSON,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Case No. 1:17-cv-00395-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(ECF NOS. 10 & 11)
UNKNOWN FLOOR OFFICERS,
Defendants.

12
13
14

ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO
PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANTS
UNKNOWN OFFICER 1 AND UNKNOWN
OFFICER 2 FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT
IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
WITH PREJUDICE

15
16

Trenell Monson (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee being held at Fresno County Jail. He

17

is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which was

19

filed on August 28, 2017. (ECF No. 10). The matter was referred to a United States magistrate

20

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On September 28, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and

22

recommendations, recommending that this action proceed against defendants Unknown Officer

23

1 and Unknown Officer 2 on Plaintiff’s claim for failure to protect in violation of the

24

Fourteenth Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed with prejudice.

25

(ECF No. 11). Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and

26

recommendations within twenty-one days.

27

respond to the findings and recommendations.

Plaintiff did not file objections or otherwise

28
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

2

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

3

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

4

analysis.

5

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

6

1.

7
8

28, 2017, are ADOPTED in full;
2.

10

claim for failure to protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;
3.

12
13

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No.
10) against defendants Unknown Officer 1 and Unknown Officer 2 on Plaintiff’s

9

11

The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September

All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action, with
prejudice; and

5.

This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2