(PC) Demerson v. Warden of SATF et al, No. 1:2006cv00250 - Document 71 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 66 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants from 56 Second Amended Complaint, and REFERRING MATTER back to Magistrate Judge to Initiate Service of Process signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/3/2010. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Demerson v. Warden of SATF et al Doc. 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 EDWARD DEMERSON, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00250-LJO-SMS PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FROM SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO INITIATE SERVICE OF PROCESS v. WARDEN OF SATF, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 (Docs. 56 and 66) / 15 16 Plaintiff Edward Demerson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has 17 filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On September 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 20 and issued a findings and recommendations recommended dismissal of certain claims and parties. 21 After obtaining an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a timely objection on November 1, 2010.1 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 23 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 24 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 1 Entitled as a motion for reconsideration. Disagreement with findings and recommendations is voiced via objections, and Plaintiff’s filing shall be treated as such. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 1, 2010, is adopted in full; 3 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed June 2, 4 2009, against Defendants Curtiss, Renya, and Morgan on Plaintiff’s excessive force 5 claim; and against Defendants Curtiss, Renya, and Reynoso on Plaintiff’s failure-to- 6 protect claim; 7 3. 8 Plaintiff’s due process, conspiracy, retaliation, and medical care claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 9 4. Defendants Woodford, Grannis, Adams, Clark, Hense, Diaz, Wan, Alva, Gallagher, 10 Pineda, Odle, Davis, Munoz, Padilla, and Hernandez are dismissed based on 11 Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them; and 12 5. 13 This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process proceedings. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: b9ed48 November 3, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
