(PC)Johnson v. Honnold, No. 1:2015cv01118 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for Dismissal of Certain of Plaintiff's Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/4/2015. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON, CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS (PC) 13 15 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS Plaintiff, 14 v. S. HONNOLD, (ECF No. 14) Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 6.) The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 22 On September 29, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and 23 recommendations (ECF No. 14) that (1) Plaintiff should proceed on Eighth Amendment 24 medical indifference claim against Defendant Honnold, and (2) all other claims asserted 25 in the Complaint and all other named Defendants should be dismissed. After filing a 26 notice with the Court agreeing to only proceed with his cognizable medical indifference 27 claim against Defendant Honnold (ECF No. 13.), Plaintiff objected to the Findings and 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Recommendations arguing that he had stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant. (ECF No. 15.) The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to clarify his position. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff has indicated that he agrees to proceed with only the medical indifference claim against Defendant Honnold. (ECF No. 17.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 14), filed on September 29, 11 12 2015, are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff is to proceed on the Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim 13 14 against Defendant Honnold; and 3. All other claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint and all other named 15 Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill December 4, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.