(PC) Armstrong v. Pelayo, et al, No. 1:2013cv01048 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER (1) Adopting 42 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (2) DISMISSING All Claims Except Retaliation Claim, and (3) REFERRING Matter to Magistrate Judge for Service of Process signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/23/2014. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BRADY K. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 D. PELAYO, Case No. 1:13-cv-01048-AWI-SKO (PC) ORDER (1) ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (2) DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS EXCEPT RETALIATION CLAIM, AND (3) REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS Defendant. 14 (Docs. 36 and 42) 15 _____________________________________/ 16 17 Plaintiff Brady K. Armstrong, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 8, 2013. The matter 19 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 20 Rule 302; and on October 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint 21 and issued a Findings and Recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff was provided with 22 twenty days within which to file an Objection, but he did not object. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, __ 23 F.3d __, __, No. 11-17911, 2014 WL 6435497, at *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. 24 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 25 Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo 26 review of this case, and it finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record 27 and by proper analysis. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 /// 1 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on October 9, 2014, is adopted in full; 2 2. This action shall proceed against Defendant Pelayo for damages on Plaintiff’s First 3 4 Amendment retaliation claim arising out of events on October 4, 2012; 3. All other claims, including Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim, 5 Eighth Amendment medical care claim, and ADA claim, are dismissed, with 6 prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 7 4. Plaintiff’s claims for declaration and injunctive relief are dismissed as moot; and 8 5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: December 23, 2014 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 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.
