(PC) Caputo v. Kern County Sheriff's Office, No. 1:2015cv01008 - Document 93 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 81 Findings and Recommendations, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/25/18. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN CAPUTO, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 Case No. 1:15-cv-01008-LJO-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF NOS. 43, 44, & 81) GONZALES, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Brian Caputo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 14 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 15 States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 16 On March 22, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 17 recommendations, recommending that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for 18 Plaintiff’s claims for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights against 19 defendant Black and Doe Defendant(s), for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment 20 against defendant Gonzalez, and for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment 21 against defendant Gonzalez. (ECF No. 81, p. 9). 22 The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 23 recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed, and no objections have been 24 filed. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 26 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 27 1 28 Plaintiff was detained at Kern County Jail at the time of the incidents alleged in the complaint. He is now incarcerated at FCI Marianna. 1 1 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 2 analysis. 3 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on March 22, 5 2018, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 6 2. All claims and defendants are dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s claims for violation 7 of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights against defendant Black and Doe 8 Defendant(s), for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against defendant 9 Gonzalez, and for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against 10 11 defendant Gonzalez; and 3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 12 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ April 25, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2