Robinson v. Davey et al

Filing 52

ORDER ADOPTING 46 Findings and Recommendations and for This Case to Proceed Only Against Defendant German for Use of Excessive Force, and Against Defendants Peterson and Gonzales-Thompson for Inadequate Medical Care Under the Eighth Amendment, and Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/21/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY L. ROBINSON,

12

17

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOR THIS
CASE TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST
DEFENDANT GERMAN FOR USE OF
EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND AGAINST
DEFENDANTS PETERSON AND
GONZALES-THOMPSON FOR
INADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE UNDER
THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND
DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS

18

(Doc. No. 46)

13
14
15
16

19

Plaintiff,

No. 1: 17-cv-01524-DAD-GSA

v.
DAVE DAVEY, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Anthony L. Robinson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

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

21

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

22

The assigned magistrate judge screened the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and found

23

that it stated cognizable claims under the Eighth Amendment against defendant German for use of

24

excessive force, and against defendants Peterson and Gonzales-Thompson for failing to provide

25

adequate medical care to plaintiff. (Doc. No. 29.) On October 29, 2018, the court issued a

26

screening order, requiring plaintiff to either (1) file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), or

27

(2) notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the

28

court. (Id.) On January 30, 2019, plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only
1

1

with the claims found cognizable by the court in the screening order. (Doc. No. 45.)

2

On January 31, 2019, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending

3

that this action proceed only against defendant German for use of excessive force, and against

4

defendants Peterson and Gonzales-Thompson for failing to provide adequate medical care under

5

the Eighth Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action

6

based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 46.) However, despite the indication

7

included in his filing of January 30, 2019, on March 25, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to the

8

findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 50.) In his objections, plaintiff does not raise any new

9

arguments but instead, reiterates arguments related to his request for a preliminary injunction that

10

have already been addressed by the magistrate judge and adopted by this court. (See Doc. Nos.

11

37, 51.)

12

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

13

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

14

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported

15

by the record and proper analysis.

16
17

Accordingly,
1.

use of excessive force, and against defendants Peterson and Gonzales-Thompson

18

for failing to provide adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

19
20

2.

All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action due to
plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim;

21
22

This action now proceeds only on plaintiff’s claims against defendant German for

3.

Plaintiff’s claims for violation of due process and equal protection, negligence,
false reports, conspiracy, and cover-up of wrongdoing are dismissed from this

23

action due to plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be
24
granted;
25
4.
26

Defendants Davey, Munoz, Welch, Blevins, Wilson, Johnson, and the Doe
Defendants are dismissed from this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state any

27
claims against these defendants upon which relief may be granted; and
28
2

1

5.

2

This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings,
including initiation of service of process.

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5

Dated:

May 21, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3