Alston v. County of Sacramento Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/27/2017 ORDERING that the 25 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full. The 17 motion to dismiss of defendants Bacoch, Carmello, County of Sacramento, Douglas, Gandhi, Grgich, Jones, and Steed is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC ALSTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-1488 KJM DB P

v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

19

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

20

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 16, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

21
22

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

23

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed

24

objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

25
26

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

27

ORDERED that:

28

////
1

1
2
3

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 16, 2017 (ECF No. 25) are adopted
in full;
2. The motion to dismiss of defendants Bacoch, Carmello, County of Sacramento,

4

Douglas, Gandhi, Grgich, Jones, and Steed (ECF No. 17) is granted in part and denied in part as

5

follows:

6

a. The claims against defendants in their official capacities are dismissed;

7

b. All claims against defendant County of Sacramento are dismissed;

8

c. The claims regarding the creation of, or failure to create, policies, practices and

9
10

customs, and the claims of failure to train against defendants Jones and Steed are
dismissed;

11

d. All claims against defendants Douglas and Bacoch are dismissed; and

12

e. This case will proceed on plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference and

13

negligence against defendants Jones, Grgich, Steed, Gandhi, and Carmello, as described at

14

pages 10 to 12 of the February 16, 2017 findings and recommendations.

15

DATED: March 27, 2017

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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