(PC) Faultry v. Sanchez et al, No. 1:2019cv01033 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/25/2019. (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 CHARLES B. FAULTRY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 1:19-cv-01033-DAD-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. SANCHEZ, et al., (Doc. No. 14) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Charles B. Faultry is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 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 August 6, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and found that 21 plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim against defendants A. Sanchez, B. Rodriguez, C. Perez, V. 22 Maldonado, and G. Smith for excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 23 against defendant E. Tindle for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 24 No. 10.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint or notify the court of his 25 willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable by the screening order within 26 thirty days after the service of the screening order. (Id. at 6–7.) On August 19, 2019, plaintiff 27 notified the court of his intent to proceed only on the cognizable claims identified by the 28 magistrate judge in the screening order. (Doc. No. 13.) 1 1 On August 22, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 2 recommending that this action proceed against defendants A. Sanchez, B. Rodriguez, C. Perez, V. 3 Maldonado, and G. Smith for excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 4 against E. Tindle for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 14.) 5 The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff’s state law claims and request for injunctive 6 relief be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 7 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. 8 (Id.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 10 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 11 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. 14 15 The findings and recommendations issued on August 22, 2019 (Doc. No. 14) are adopted in full; 2. This action shall proceed against defendants A. Sanchez, B. Rodriguez, C. Perez, 16 V. Maldonado, and G. Smith for excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth 17 Amendment, and against E. Tindle for failure to intervene in violation of the 18 Eighth Amendment; 19 3. Plaintiff’s state law claims and request for injunctive relief are dismissed; and 20 4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 21 22 23 24 proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 25, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
