Lipsey v. Reddy et al
Filing
23
ORDER Adopting 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing Certain Claims for Improper Venue and Joinder; ORDER Adopting 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing Certain Claims for the Failure to State a Cognizable Claim, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/27/17. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,
8
Plaintiff,
9
vs.
10
11
12
DR. REDDY, et al.,
Defendants.
13
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:17-cv-00569-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, (ECF No. 10), AND
DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR
IMPROPER VENUE AND JOINDER
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, (ECF No. 12), AND
DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR THE
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE
CLAIM
Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
16
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States
17
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
18
On June 6, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations
19
recommending that Plaintiff’s claims I-V, and IX be dismissed from this action, without
20
prejudice, due to improper venue and being improperly joined. (ECF No. 10.) The Findings and
21
Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections must be
22
filed within thirty days after service of that order. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff’s claims VI, VII and VIII
23
were also screened, and Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to amend them, (ECF No. 9), which
24
he subsequently declined, (ECF No. 11).
25
On June 19, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations
26
recommending that this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force in violation
27
of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Hernandez, Celedon, and Mancilla for allegedly
28
attacking Plaintiff on March 21, 2016, and that Plaintiff’s other claims against these Defendants
1
1
be dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 12.)
2
The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any
3
objections must be filed within fourteen days after service of that order. (Id. at 4.)
4
The deadlines for any objections to the foregoing findings and recommendations have
5
expired, and no objections have been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
6
636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case and carefully reviewed the
7
entire file. The Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record
8
and by proper analysis.
9
10
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
in full;
11
12
The findings and recommendations dated June 6, 2017 (ECF No. 10) are adopted
2.
Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Reddy, MTA Smith, MTA Ortiz, Law Librarian
13
Kalil, Librarian Supervisor K. Spencer, and R. De la Rosa are dismissed, without
14
prejudice, for improper venue and as improperly joined;
3. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants Hernandez, Celedon,
15
and Mancilla for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
16
17
4.
All other claims against Defendants Hernandez, Celedon, and Mancilla are
18
dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which
19
relief may be granted; and
20
5.
This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for proceedings
consistent with this order.
21
22
23
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
July 27, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?