Hendrix v. Orozco-Soria, et al.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAWRENCE D. HENDRIX, III,
D. OROZCO-SORIA AND A. ASTORGA,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
COGNIZABLE CLAIMS FOR EXCESSIVE
FORCE AND MEDICAL INDIFFERENCE
AND RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 9.)
Plaintiff Lawrence D. Hendrix, III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Plaintiff filed a prison civil rights complaint on May 30, 2017 against Valley State Prison
(“VSP”) correctional officers D. Orozco-Soria and A. Astorga alleging violations of the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 26, 2017, the
assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order requiring plaintiff to either file a first amended
complaint addressing the deficiencies noted in that order or to notify the court that he was
electing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment excessive force and medical indifference
claims alleged in the original complaint against defendant Astorga which had been found by the
court to be cognizable. (Doc. No. 6 at 10.) On July 25, 2016, plaintiff filed notice with the court
of “his willingness to proceed only with the excessive force and medical indifference claims
against defendant A. Astorga.” (Doc. No. 8.)
Accordingly, on July 27, 2017, the magistrate judge entered findings and
recommendations, recommending that: (1) this case proceed only on plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claims for excessive force and medical indifference brought against defendant A.
Astorga; and (2) all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 9.) The findings and
recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to
be filed within fourteen days of service. (Id.) No objections were filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of the matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
1. The July 27, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 9) are adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s excessive force and medical indifference
claims brought under the Eighth Amendment against defendant A. Astorga;
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and
4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 30, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?