Lewis v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabiliation et al

Filing 11

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That All Claims and Defendants be Dismissed, Except for Plaintiff's Claims for Excessive Force in Violation of the Eighth Amendment Against Defendants B. Nickell, J. Ramirez and O. Delgado, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/22/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

TONY R. LEWIS,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILIATION, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01064-DAD-EPG (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT ALL CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED,
EXCEPT FOR PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION
OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT
AGAINST DEFENDANTS B. NICKELL, J.
RAMIREZ AND O. DELGADO
(ECF NOS. 1 & 9)

16

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

17
18

Tony R. Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed the

20

complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1).

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 9). The Court found that the complaint stated

22

cognizable claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants

23

B. Nickell, J. Ramirez and O. Delgado. (Id. at 10). The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to

24

state any other cognizable claims. (Id).

The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint

25

The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims for

26

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants B. Nickell, J.

27

Ramirez and O. Delgado, amending the complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the

28

Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening
1

1

order. (Id. at 11). On February 7, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court that he is willing to

2

proceed only on the claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against

3

defendants B. Nickell, J. Ramirez and O. Delgado. (ECF No. 10).

4

Accordingly, for the reasons laid out in the Court’s screening order that was entered on

5

January 2, 2018 (ECF No. 9), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he is willing to

6

proceed only on the claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against

7

defendants B. Nickell, J. Ramirez and O. Delgado (ECF No. 10),

8

RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s claims

9

for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants B. Nickell, J.

10

it is HEREBY

Ramirez and O. Delgado.

11

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge

12

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

13

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file

14

written objections with the Court.

15

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

16

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.

17

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

18

(9th Cir. 1991)).

The document should be captioned “Objections to

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 22, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2