Cruz v. Savioe

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/30/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1: 17-cv-01474-DAD-BAM

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS

S. SAVIOE,

15

Defendant.

16

(Doc. No. 17)

17
Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18
19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a

20

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 24, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

21
22

recommending that plaintiff be allowed to proceed on his First Amendment retaliation claim

23

against defendant Savioe’s as alleged in his first amended complaint but that all other claims be

24

dismissed from this action and that plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. No.

25

12 at 6.)
The findings and recommendations were served on all parties appearing in this action and

26
27

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.

28

/////
1

1

at 7.) Following the granting of an extension of time, plaintiff timely filed objections on June 11,

2

2018. (Doc. No. 15.)

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

4

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

5

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

6

In his objections, plaintiff contends that he alleged sufficient facts in his first amended

7

complaint to support claims against defendant Savioe for the excessive use of force and deliberate

8

indifference.1 As discussed in the findings and recommendations, plaintiff’s conclusory

9

assertions are insufficient to state a cognizable claim for excessive force or deliberate

10

indifference. To the extent that plaintiff objects to the dismissal of certain claims on the basis that

11

defendant Savioe has not met her burden to provide an alternate explanation for the incidents

12

alleged, the court notes that defendant Savioe has not appeared or been served in this action and

13

does not yet have an obligation to respond to the allegations of plaintiff’s first amended

14

complaint. None of plaintiff’s remaining arguments provide a legal basis on which to question

15

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.

16

Accordingly,

17

1.

18

The findings and recommendations issued on May 24, 2018 (Doc. No. 12) are
adopted in full;

19

2.

This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed on May 21,

20

2018 (Doc. No. 11) against defendant Savioe for retaliation in violation of the First

21

Amendment;

22

3.

23

/////

24

/////

25

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is denied as moot;

/////

26
Plaintiff attached more than 330 pages of exhibits to his objections. Because plaintiff has not
incorporated these exhibits by reference or explained the significance of any of these documents,
the court declines to expend its limited resources examining those documents in an attempt to
discern any meritorious objection to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.
2
1

27
28

1

4.

The remaining claims are dismissed from this action; and

2

5.

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further

3
4
5
6

proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 30, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3