(PC) Hamilton v. Lara et al, No. 1:2008cv01967 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 15 ; ORDER for This Action to Proceed Only Against Defendants Gurrero and Arenivas, on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Excessive Force Claims, and Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 8/6/2010. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Hamilton v. Lara et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUGENE HAMILTON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. LARA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 1:08-cv-01967-OWW-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15.) ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS GURRERO AND ARENIVAS, ON PLAINTIFF'S EIGHTH AMENDMENT EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS, AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS _____________________________/ Eugene Hamilton (“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 302. 22 On June 23, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 23 this action proceed only against defendants Gurrero and Arenivas on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment 24 excessive force claims, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed based on plaintiff's 25 failure to state a claim. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the 26 findings and recommendations within thirty days. To date, plaintiff has not filed objections or 27 otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, 2 this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 5 1. 6 7 The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on June 23, 2010, are adopted in full; 2. 8 This action now proceeds only against defendants Gurrero and Arenivas, on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims; 9 3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; 10 4. Defendants Lara, Cohen, Braswell, Hicinbothom, Cano, Quinones, Junious, 11 Moon, Garnett, Wang, Labelle, Minn, Jalisman, McGuinness, Hall, Grannis, 12 Chrones, Adams, Tipton, Wilkins, Schutt, Schape, Doering, and Does 1-10 13 are dismissed from this action based on plaintiff's failure to state any claims 14 upon which relief may be granted against them; 15 5. Plaintiff's claims for retaliation, due process, inadequate medical care, appeals 16 process violations, equal protection, all acts occurring at Lancaster State 17 Prison, claims for injunctive relief, and deprivation of yard time, showers, 18 meals, and access to medications are dismissed based on plaintiff's failure to 19 state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983; and 20 6. The Clerk is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendants Lara, Cohen, 21 Braswell, Hicinbothom, Cano, Quinones, Junious, Moon, Garnett, Wang, 22 Labelle, Minn, Jalisman, McGuinness, Hall, Grannis, Chrones, Adams, 23 Tipton, Wilkins, Schutt, Schape, and Doering on the court's docket. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 6, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
