Callins v. Stainer et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/03/2018. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARLTON R. CALLINS,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:17-cv-00840-DAD-EPG

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

M. D. STAINER, et al.,
(Doc. No. 21)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Carlton R. Callins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

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

19

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

20

On May 21, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and found

21

certain of plaintiff’s claims to be cognizable. (Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiff was then directed either to

22

file a first amended complaint if he wished to attempt to cure the defects identified by the

23

magistrate judge, or else to notify the court that he wished to proceed only on those claims found

24

cognizable. (Id. at 12.) On June 18, 2018, plaintiff notified the court that he did not wish to file

25

an amended complaint and would proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the magistrate

26

judge’s screening order. (Doc. No. 19.) Accordingly, the assigned magistrate judge issued

27

findings and recommendations, recommending “that all claims and defendants be dismissed,

28

except for Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant C. Kyt for violation of the Eighth amendment for
1

1

sexual harassment and/or assault; against Defendants Garrison, Zamora, Manson, Pfeiffer, and

2

Duncan for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants J.

3

Cervantes, J. Guzman, J. Pena, J. Lopez, I. Padilla, and J. Escutia for excessive force in violation

4

of the Eighth Amendment.” (Doc. No. 21 at 2.) The findings and recommendations were served

5

on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days

6

after service. (Id.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed,

7

and the time in which to do so has now passed.

8

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

9

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

10

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

11

Accordingly,

12

1.

13
14

The findings and recommendations issued on June 21, 2018 (Doc. No. 21) are
adopted in full; and

2.

All claims and defendants are dismissed, except for plaintiff’s claims against

15

defendant C. Kyt for violation of the Eighth Amendment for sexual harassment

16

and/or assault; against defendants Garrison, Zamora, Manson, Pfeiffer, and

17

Duncan for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against

18

defendants J. Cervantes, J. Guzman, J. Pena, J. Lopez, I. Padilla, and J. Escutia for

19

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 3, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2