(PC)Howell v. Burns, et al., No. 1:2018cv00311 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DISMISSING Defendant M. Sexton signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/9/2018. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KAREEM J. HOWELL, 10 Plaintiff, 11 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 12 Case No. 1:18-cv-00311-LJO-EPG (PC) J. BURNS, et al., 13 (ECF Nos. 10, 11) Defendants. 14 15 Kareem J. Howell (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil 16 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate 17 Judge Erica P. Grosjean pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On June 22, 2018, Magistrate Judge Grosjean entered findings and recommendations, 19 recommending that Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment 20 against Defendant D. Lopez, for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of 21 the Eighth Amendment against Defendants D. Lopez and J. Burns, and for interference with the 22 mail and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendant J. Holland be allowed 23 to proceed, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 11 at 24 10). Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations 25 within twenty-one days. The deadline has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed objections. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 27 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 28 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on June 22, 3 2018, (ECF No. 11), are ADOPTED in full; 4 2. This action may proceed on Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force in violation of 5 the Eighth Amendment against Defendant D. Lopez, for deliberate indifference to 6 serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 7 D. Lopez and J. Burns, and for interference with the mail and retaliation in 8 violation of the First Amendment against Defendant J. Holland; 9 3. All other claims and all other defendants are dismissed; and 10 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of Defendant M. Sexton on the Court’s docket. 11 12 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ August 9, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.