(PC) Gray v. Clark et al, No. 1:2020cv00196 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations and dismissing Warden Clark from the action signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/31/2020. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS EUGENE GRAY, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff, v. KEN CLARK, et.al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 1:20-cv-00196-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING WARDEN CLARK FROM THE ACTION (Doc. No. 10) Plaintiff Thomas Eugene Gray is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 18, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and found that plaintiff stated a cognizable failure to protect claim against defendants Sielken and Hurtado and a cognizable excessive force claim against defendant Jennings in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 8.) The court ordered plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the court in writing of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (Id.) On February 28, 2020, plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims identified by the court on February 18, 2020. (Doc. No. 9.) 1 1 On March 3, 2020, the court issued findings and recommendations recommending that action 2 proceed against defendants Sielken and Hurtado for failure to protect and against defendant Jennings 3 for excessive force, and defendant Warden Clark be dismissed from the action for failure to state a 4 cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. No. 10.) The findings and recommendations were served upon 5 plaintiff with notice that he must file any objections within fourteen days. The period for objections 6 has passed without any party filing objections. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court 8 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds 9 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The March 3, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 1) are adopted in full; 12 2. This action shall proceed against defendants Sielken and Hurtado for failure to protect and against defendant Jennings for excessive force; and 13 14 3. Defendant Warden Clark is dismissed from the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 15 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.