(PC) Brys v. Stanislaus County Sheriffs Department et al, No. 1:2019cv00838 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/28/2021. Duncan (Cpt.), Ghemnti (Under Sheriff), Johnson (Sgt.), Kirk (Lt.), Miller (Deputy), Robinson (Deputy), Souza (Sgt.), Stanislaus County Sheriffs Department, Cuevas (Deputy) and Dirksi (Sheriff) terminated. Case is Referred back to Magistrate Judge. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER L. BRYS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 1:19-cv-00838-DAD-GSA (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GONZALES, et al., (Doc. No. 17) 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Christopher L. Brys is a former Stanislaus County prisoner proceeding pro se and 17 18 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On March 17, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that this action proceed only against defendant Gonzales for failure to protect 23 plaintiff in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be 24 dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 17.) The 25 pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 26 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 12.) 27 To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed with the court, and 28 the time in which to do so has now 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 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 7 adopted in full; 2. 8 9 3. 14 15 All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and 4. 12 13 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Gonzales for failure to protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; 10 11 The findings and recommendations issues on March 17, 2021 (Doc. No. 17) are This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 28, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.