(PC) Brown v. Woodward et al, No. 1:2019cv00626 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/21/2021 ADOPTING 22 Findings and Recommendations. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES BROWN, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-00626-DAD-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS D. WOODWARD, et al., (Doc. No. 22) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff James Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 23, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Woodward and 22 Lopez for alleged deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs and against 23 defendant Woodward for alleged excessive use of force and retaliation. (Doc. No. 22.) Therein, 24 it was also recommended that the non-cognizable claims and remaining defendants be dismissed 25 from this action because further amendment would be futile. (Id. at 1, 10-11.) The findings and 26 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 27 to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. (Id. at 11.) To date, plaintiff has not filed any objections 28 and the time to do so has long since passed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 5 Accordingly, 1. 6 7 The findings and recommendations issued on February 23, 2021, (Doc. No. 22), are adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed July 8 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 21), against defendants Woodward and Lopez on plaintiff’s 9 claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and against defendant 10 11 Woodward on plaintiff’s claims of excessive use of force and retaliation; 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action for failure to state a 12 claim with prejudice because the granting of further leave to amend would be 13 futile; and 14 4. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. April 21, 2021 UNITED STATES 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.
