ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 27)

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, (Doc. No. 17), PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, (Doc. No. 24), AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SCHEDULING ORDER, (Doc. No. 23)

ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff Mark Hodge ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendants Gonzalez and Flores for unconstitutional conditions of confinement, against Defendant Gonzalez for excessive force, and against Defendant Flores for failure to protect Plaintiff, all in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.1

On March 9, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge filed a findings and recommendations ("F&R"), recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 27.) Specifically, Defendants moved to dismiss this action in its entirety on the grounds that the claims in Plaintiff's first amended complaint are barred by the holdings of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480 (1994), and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643 (1997). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Gonzalez, and failure to protect claim against Defendant Flores, be dismissed without prejudice as Heck barred, but that the action continue to proceed on Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Gonzalez and Flores for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint and motion for a scheduling order both be denied.

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen days. More than fourteen days have passed, and no objections were filed.

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 that the F&R is supported by the record and proper analysis.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed by the assigned magistrate judge on March 9, 2017 (Doc. No. 27), are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss, filed May 10, 2016 (Doc. No. 17), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

3. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Gonzalez, and failure to protect claim against Defendant Flores, are DISMISSED, without prejudice, as Heck-barred;

4. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint, filed August 15, 2016 (Doc. No. 24), is DENIED;

5. Plaintiff's motion for scheduling order, filed July 25, 2016 (Doc. No. 23), is DENIED;

6. This action proceeds only on Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Gonzalez and Flores for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and

7. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.