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