(PC) Pina v. Ysusi et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/13/2021. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PABLO PIÑA,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

No. 1:20-cv-01735-NONE-BAM (PC)

YSUSI, et al.,
Defendants.

15

(Doc. No. 12)

16

Plaintiff Pablo Piña is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant

17
18

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On May 11, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended

20

complaint and issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed on two of plaintiff’s

21

claims: a claim for excessive force against defendant Ysusi for shooting plaintiff with a

22

“launcher” after a fight in the prison yard had stopped; and a claim for retaliation against

23

defendant J. Gonzales. (Doc. No. 12.) The magistrate judge further recommended that all other

24

claims and defendants be dismissed from this action for failure to state a cognizable claim for

25

relief. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that

26

any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 9.) No objections

27

have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired.

28

////
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Accordingly,

5

1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 11, 2021, (Doc. No. 12), are

6
7

adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed April 26, 2021,

8

(Doc. No. 10), against defendant Ysusi for excessive force in violation of the Eighth

9

Amendment and against defendant J. Gonzales for retaliation in violation of the First

10
11

Amendment;
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state a

12
13

cognizable claim for relief; and
4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this

14

order.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 13, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2