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)

Download PDF
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?