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
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?