Howard v. Hildebrand et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/30/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ISRAEL HOWARD,

11
12
13
14

No. 1:17-cv-01397-LJO-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
M. HILDEBRAND, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 13)

15
16
17

Plaintiff Israel Howard is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

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

20

On April 4, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations,

21

recommending that this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim for (1) excessive force in

22

violation of the Eighth Amendment against Sergeants Hildebrand and Garza; (2) deliberate

23

indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Sergeants

24

Hildebrand and Garza, and Officer Marquez; (3) Eighth Amendment unconstitutional conditions

25

of confinement against Sergeant Hildebrand and Officer Marquez; and (4) retaliation in violation

26

of the First Amendment against Sergeant Hildebrand. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff was provided an

27

opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen days. (Id.)

28

That deadline has passed, and no objections were filed.
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

6
7

The findings and recommendations issued on April 4, 2018 (Doc. No. 13) are

adopted in full;
2.

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim for (1) excessive force in violation

8

of the Eighth Amendment against Sergeants Hildebrand and Garza; (2) deliberate indifference to

9

a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Sergeants Hildebrand and

10

Garza, and Officer Marquez; (3) Eighth Amendment unconstitutional conditions of confinement

11

against Sergeant Hildebrand and Officer Marquez; and (4) retaliation in violation of the First

12

Amendment against Sergeant Hildebrand;

13

3.

All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; and

14

4.

This case is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,

15

including initiation of service of process.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

April 30, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2