Hendrix v. Orozco-Soria, et al.

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding Cognizable Claims for Excessive Force and Medical Indifference and Recommending Dismissal of all Other Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/30/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE D. HENDRIX, III,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 1:17-cv-00750-DAD-MJS

Plaintiff,
v.
D. OROZCO-SORIA AND A. ASTORGA,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING
COGNIZABLE CLAIMS FOR EXCESSIVE
FORCE AND MEDICAL INDIFFERENCE
AND RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 9.)

18
19

Plaintiff Lawrence D. Hendrix, III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a

21

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

Plaintiff filed a prison civil rights complaint on May 30, 2017 against Valley State Prison

23

(“VSP”) correctional officers D. Orozco-Soria and A. Astorga alleging violations of the Eighth

24

and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 26, 2017, the

25

assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order requiring plaintiff to either file a first amended

26

complaint addressing the deficiencies noted in that order or to notify the court that he was

27

electing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment excessive force and medical indifference

28

claims alleged in the original complaint against defendant Astorga which had been found by the
1

1

court to be cognizable. (Doc. No. 6 at 10.) On July 25, 2016, plaintiff filed notice with the court

2

of “his willingness to proceed only with the excessive force and medical indifference claims

3

against defendant A. Astorga.” (Doc. No. 8.)

4

Accordingly, on July 27, 2017, the magistrate judge entered findings and

5

recommendations, recommending that: (1) this case proceed only on plaintiff’s Eighth

6

Amendment claims for excessive force and medical indifference brought against defendant A.

7

Astorga; and (2) all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 9.) The findings and

8

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to

9

be filed within fourteen days of service. (Id.) No objections were filed.

10

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

11

de novo review of the matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the

12

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

13

Accordingly,

14

1. The July 27, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 9) are adopted in full;

15

2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s excessive force and medical indifference

16

claims brought under the Eighth Amendment against defendant A. Astorga;

17

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and

18

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

19
20
21

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 30, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2