(PC) Buckley, Jr. v. Johnson et al, No. 1:2017cv00102 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS regarding dismissal of certain claims and defendants signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/30/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY C. BUCKLEY, JR., 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 Case No. 1:17-cv-00102-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS JOHNSON, et al., 15 (ECF No. 16) Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Rodney C. Buckley, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 4, 2018, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint under 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated the following cognizable claims: (1) excessive force 21 in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants B. Johnson, Correctional Officer, and 22 R. Zamora, Correctional Officer, for the incident on or about January 22, 2013; (2) failure to 23 protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Gutierrez, Correctional Officer, 24 who was at the podium, Defendant A. Rocha, who was in the control booth, and Defendant John 25 Doe, who was in the floor staff’s office, and saw the assault and refused to intervene in the 26 incident on or about January 22, 2013; and (3) a claim for retaliation in violation of the First 27 Amendment against Defendant J. Gonzales, Correction Lieutenant, for placing Plaintiff in Ad-seg 28 on or about January 23, 2013. (ECF No. 16.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that all other 1 1 claims and defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure be dismissed for failure to state 2 claims upon which relief may be granted. Those findings and recommendations were served on 3 Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 4 days after service. (Id.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline in which to do so has 5 expired. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 8 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 4, 2018, (ECF No. 16), are adopted 11 12 in full; 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed November 27, 13 2017, (ECF No. 14), for: (1) excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment 14 against Defendants B. Johnson and R. Zamora for the incident on or about January 22, 15 2013; (2) failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 16 Gutierrez, A. Rocha, and John Doe, who saw the assault and refused to intervene in 17 the incident on or about January 22, 2013; and (3) a claim for retaliation in violation of 18 the First Amendment against Defendant J. Gonzales, for placing Plaintiff in Ad-seg on 19 or about January 23, 2013; 20 3. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s 21 22 failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted; and 4. This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings 23 consistent with this order. 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ May 30, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.