ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS BE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART (ECF Nos. 78, 88, 106)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

William Fabricius ("Plaintiff" or "William"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action against numerous defendants alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in connection with the seizure of twenty-five dogs. This action is now proceeding on Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint ("3AC"). The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

On September 29, 2017, Paul Grenseman filed a motion to dismiss the claims against him. (ECF No. 88). On September 1, 2017, the remaining defendants who have appeared filed a motion to dismiss this action. (ECF No. 78).

On March 16, 2018, Magistrate Judge Grosjean issued findings and recommendations that all claims against Valeriano Saucedo, Thomas Elliott Hornburg, Ralph Mario Agnello, Cecile F. Shaffer, Kathleen Marie Bales-Lange, Lisa Marie Tennenbaum, and Zendajas, who have not been served in this action, should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B); and Defendants' motions to dismiss, (ECF Nos. 78, 88), should be granted as to all remaining claims and defendants, except Tulare County Sheriff Officers Bradley McLean and Lance Heiden for unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (ECF No. 106). The findings and recommendations were served on the parties with instructions that any objections must be filed within twenty-one days.

On March 20, 2018, Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations, raising the affirmative defense that the claims of unreasonable force are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (ECF No. 107). On April 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed his objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 108).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections and Defendants' objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In their Objections, Defendants argue for the first time that Plaintiff's excessive force claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The Court declines to address that newly-raised defense at this time.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.