(PC) Vigil v. Yates, et al., No. 1:2010cv01977 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 35 ; ORDER that this Action Proceed on the Third Amended Complaint against Defendant Valencia for Excessive Force; ORDER Dismissing Remaining Claims, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/26/16. Defendants Yates, Diez, Espino, King, OBrien, Howard, Solo, Das, and Brown Dismissed. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIE PAUL VIGIL, Case No. 1:10-cv-01977-LJO-SAB-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No.35) 13 14 15 v. JAMES YATES, et al., ORDER THAT THIS ACTION PROCEED ON THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT VALENCIA FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE Defendants. 16 ORDER DISMISSING REMAINING CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 18, 2016, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that this action proceed on the third amended complaint against Defendant Valencia on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force, and that the remaining claims and Defendants be dismissed.Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections within thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this 28 1 1 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 2 Court finds the record to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on March 18, 5 2016, are adopted in full; 6 2. This action proceeds on the third amended complaint against Defendant C/O 7 Valencia on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force. 8 3. Defendants Yates, Diez, Espino, King, O’Brien, Howard, Solo, Das, and Brown 9 are dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against them; 10 4. Plaintiff’s medical care claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim; and 11 5. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for service of process of the third 12 amended complaint. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill April 26, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.