(PC) Metcalf v. Huckleberry et al, No. 1:2019cv00809 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/18/2020. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENZELL METCALF, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-00809-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS C. HUCKLEBERRY, et al., (Doc. No. 12) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Denzell Metcalf is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 19, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 21 complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action proceed 22 against defendants Huckleberry, Marquez, and Franco on plaintiff’s claim for failure to protect in 23 violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed based 24 on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 12.) The 25 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 26 thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4–5.) Plaintiff filed what 27 he characterized as “objections” on December 5, 2019, but in which he stated that he did not 28 oppose the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 13.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly: 6 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 19, 2019, (Doc. No. 12), are 7 8 adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed November 15, 9 2019, (Doc. No. 10), against defendants Huckleberry, Marquez, and Franco for failure 10 11 to protect plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed, with prejudice, based on plaintiff’s 12 13 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 14 15 16 consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 18, 2020 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.
