ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 17)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff Tommy Mackey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 4, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's complaint and found that he had stated excessive use of force claims against defendants R. Rodriguez, D. Rodriguez, Pompa, Garcia, Schulte, and Martinez. (Doc. No. 10.) The assigned magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff's remaining claims and other named defendants be dismissed without prejudice and that he be granted leave to amend the complaint. (Id.) On June 26, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge vacated the April 4, 2019 findings and recommendations, (Doc. No. 14), and issued in its place a screening order adopting the same analysis. (Doc. No. 15.) Plaintiff was ordered to either (1) proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the court's screening order, (2) amend the complaint to add additional factual allegations in an attempt to make out an additional claim or claims against additional defendants, or (3) stand on the original complaint subject to dismissal of claims and defendants consistent with the court's screening order. (Id. at 8.) On July 26, 2019, plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims identified by the court in the screening order. (Doc. No. 16.)

Consequently, on August 2, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed on plaintiff's claim for excessive use of force against defendants R. Rodriguez, D. Rodriguez, Pompa, Garcia, Schulte, and Martinez, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Doc. No. 17.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) More than fourteen days have passed since the findings and recommendations were served, and no objections have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly:

IT IS SO ORDERED.