(PC) Thesus v. Ramos et al, No. 1:2020cv00593 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations to DISMISS Non-Cognizable Claims; ORDERED that this case be referred back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/10/2020. (Defendant: Ybarra terminated)(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUNTER D. THESUS, No. 1:20-cv-0593-NONE-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENATIONS TO DISMISS NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIMS 14 S. RAMOS, et al., 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 13) CASE TO REMAIN OPEN 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 5, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that certain claims be permitted to proceed, while others be dismissed for failure 22 to state a claim. (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 23 contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 24 filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff did not file objections; rather, he previously indicated his 25 desire to proceed with the complaint as screened and as set forth in the findings and 26 recommendations. (Doc. No. 11.) 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 3 ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 5, 2020 (Doc. 13), are adopted in 5 full; and 6 2. This action shall proceed on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against 7 Correctional Officers S. Ramos, J. Gonzalez, D. Garcia, and D. Negrete in their individual 8 capacities. All remaining claims and defendants are hereby dismissed. 9 3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent 10 with this order. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 13 December 10, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Although this case was stayed for 90 days so that the parties could pursue alternative dispute resolution, Doc. No. 16, the stay order assumes adoption of the findings and recommendations and therefore cannot be read to bar the court from acting on the findings and recommendations. 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.