(PC) Barboza v. Stengel, No. 1:2018cv00580 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/24/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MARK LEE BARBOZA, 9 10 11 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cv-00580-LJO-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF NOS. 1 & 11) SEAN STENGEL, 12 Defendant. 13 14 Mark Barboza (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 15 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 16 United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 17 On October 4, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 18 recommendations, recommending “that all claims be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s claim 19 against Defendant Sean Stengel for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” 20 (ECF No. 11, p. 2). 21 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 22 recommendations. The deadline for filing objections has passed and Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 25 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 26 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 27 analysis. 28 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 1 1 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on October 4, 2 2018, are ADOPTED in full; and 2. All claims are dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Sean 3 4 Stengel for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ November 24, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 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.