BRADLEY v. VILLA, 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA-PC. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140801c23
Visitors: 26
Filed: Jul. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 48.) ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT C/O L. VILLA FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT VILLA TO FILE ANSWER LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. William Bradley ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing t
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 48.) ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT C/O L. VILLA FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT VILLA TO FILE ANSWER LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. William Bradley ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing th..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 48.)
ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT C/O L. VILLA FOR USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT VILLA TO FILE ANSWER
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
William Bradley ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on September 8, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on September 14, 2012. (Doc. 19.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 25, 2014, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendant Correctional Officer ("C/O") L. Villa1 for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim. (Doc. 48.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice in support of the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 49.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) 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.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on June 25, 2014, are ADOPTED in full;
2. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, filed on September 14, 2012, against defendant C/O L. Villa for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
3. All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;
4. Defendants Henderson, Hightower, and Wood are DISMISSED from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them;
5. Plaintiff's claim for failure to protect him is DISMISSED from this action, based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983;
6. The Clerk is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendants Hightower, Henderson, and Wood from this action on the court's docket; and
7. Defendant C/O L. Villa is required to file an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint within thirty days of the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The findings and recommendations refer to defendant "J. Villa." (Doc. 48 at 1:22.) In some of his complaints, Plaintiff refers to the defendant interchangeably as "J. Villa" and "L. Villa;" however, Plaintiff refers to defendant as "L. Villa" throughout the Third Amended Complaint, and it appears from the record that defendant's name is "L. Villa," not "J. Villa."
Source: Leagle
