(PC) Thomas v. Reyna et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Non-Cognizable Claims, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/17/2020. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT QUINCY THOMAS,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:19-cv-01217-DAD-GSA (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
NON–COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

REYNA, et al.,
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 16)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Robert Quincy Thomas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

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

20

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

21

On September 11, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint

22

(Doc. No. 1) and found that he had stated cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive use of force

23

claims against defendants Reyna, Podsakoff, Vellido, Centeno, and Huerta. However, plaintiff’s

24

remaining claims were found not to be cognizable. (Doc. No. 13.) The magistrate judge

25

therefore granted plaintiff thirty (30) days to either file a first amended complaint or to notify the

26

court that he would proceed only on his excessive use of force claims found to be cognizable in

27

the screening order. (Id. at 9.) On September 21, 2020, plaintiff notified the court that he was

28

willing to proceed only with the claims found cognizable in the screening order. (Doc. No. 14.)
1

1

Accordingly, on September 23, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

2

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s claims previously found not to be cognizable in

3

the initial screening order be dismissed. (Doc. No. 16.) The findings and recommendations were

4

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

5

fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id.) To date, no objections to the findings and

6

recommendations have been filed with the court, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11
12
13
14

Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 23, 2020 (Doc. No. 16) are
adopted in full;
2. This action now proceeds only on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive use of force
claims against defendants Reyna, Podsakoff, Vellido, Centeno, and Huerta;

15

3. All other claims in the complaint are dismissed; and

16

4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 17, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2