(PC) Caruso v. Johnson et al, No. 1:2015cv00780 - Document 53 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 45 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 01/10/2018. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 GINA CARUSO, 7 8 9 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:15-cv-00780-AWI-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF NOS. 22, 24, & 45) OFFICER G. SOLORIO, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Gina Caruso (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 13 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 14 States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 15 On December 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 16 recommendations, recommending that all claims and defendants, except for Plaintiff’s claims 17 against defendants Ingram, Martinez, Lopez, and Solorio for excessive force in violation of the 18 Eighth Amendment and for an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, be 19 dismissed. (ECF No. 45, p. 10). 20 21 The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 23 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 24 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 25 analysis. 26 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 27 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on December 7, 28 2017, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 1 1 2. All claims and defendants, except for Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Ingram, 2 Martinez, Lopez, and Solorio for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 3 Amendment and for an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, 4 are DISMISSED; and 5 3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 10, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 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.
