(PC) Fuentes v. CDCR Holding Corporation Representatives, No. 1:2017cv00745 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/15/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JONATHAN FUENTES, 8 9 10 11 12 Case No. 1:17-cv-00745-LJO-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF NOS. 9 & 12) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION HOLDING CORPORATION REPRESENTATIVES, et al., Defendants. 13 14 Jonathan Fuentes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 15 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on 16 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 9). The matter was referred to a United States 17 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On March 28, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 19 recommendations, recommending that “this case proceed against Defendant G. Rodriguez on 20 Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, for an 21 unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, for retaliation in violation of the 22 First Amendment, for assault, and for battery, and that all other claims and defendants be 23 dismissed with prejudice.” (ECF No. 12, p. 15). 24 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 25 recommendations. The deadline for filing objections has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed 26 objections. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 28 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 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. 5 6 The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on March 28, 2018, are ADOPTED in full; 2. This case proceed against Defendant G. Rodriguez on Plaintiff’s claims for 7 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, for an unreasonable 8 search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, for retaliation in violation of the 9 First Amendment, for assault, and for battery; 10 3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice; 11 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendant 12 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Holding Corporation 13 Representatives on the Court’s docket, and to add Defendant G. Rodriguez; and 14 5. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ May 15, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF 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.
