(PC) Thomas v. CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., No. 1:2007cv01165 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER for this 11 Action to Proceed Only Against Defendant Sergeant R. Cox on Plaintiff's Claim for Excessive Force, and Dismissing all other Claims and Defendants; ORDER Directing Clerk to Reflect Dismissal of Certain Defendants on Court's Docket signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/16/2009. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Thomas v. CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN THOMAS, 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. 16 19 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 20) ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT SERGEANT R. COX ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO REFLECT DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS ON COURT'S DOCKET 17 18 1:07-cv-01165-AWI-GSA-PC _____________________________/ John Thomas (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 22 On August 18, 2009, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 23 that this action proceed only against defendant Sergeant R. Cox on plaintiff's claim for excessive 24 force under the Eighth Amendment, and all other claims and defendants be dismissed. Plaintiff was 25 provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. 26 To date, plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and 27 recommendations. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73- 2 305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 3 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August 18, 7 2009, are adopted in full; 8 9 2. This action now proceeds only against defendant Sergeant R. Cox, for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment; 10 3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; and 11 4. Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), 12 Carrillo (Correctional Officer), A. Hedgpeth (Warden), S. L. Kays (Assistant Warden), J.D. Soto 13 (Captain), Donald Schroeder (Lieutenant), S. Simpson (Lieutenant), L. Garcia (Medical Technical 14 Assistant), and A. Diza-Albarran (Correctional Officer) are dismissed from this action based on 15 Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them; and 16 17 5. The Clerk is directed to reflect dismissal of defendants CDCR, Carrillo, Hedgpeth Kays , Soto, Schroeder, Simpson, Garcia, and Diza-Albarran from this action on the court's docket. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: 0m8i78 October 16, 2009 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.