(PC) Thompson v. Pfeiffer et al, No. 1:2020cv01619 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/27/2022. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAHN GREGORY THOMPSON, 12 No. 1:20-cv-01619-DAD-GSA (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 PFEIFFER, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 13) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Rahn Gregory Thompson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the 19 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 20, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that this case proceed only on plaintiff’s use of excessive force claims brought 23 against defendants Dozer and Nava and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed due to 24 plaintiff’s failure to state cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 13.) The pending findings and 25 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 26 to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id.) To date, no objections to the 27 findings and recommendations have been filed with the court, and the time in which to do so has 28 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 The findings and recommendations issued on April 20, 2022 (Doc. No. 13) are adopted; 7 2. This action now proceeds only on plaintiff’s use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment claims brought against defendants Dozer and Nava1; 8 9 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and 10 4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 11 12 proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: May 27, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Although defendants Dozer and Nava are explicitly listed in plaintiff’s complaint as well as in the assigned magistrate judge’s screening order (Doc. Nos. 1, 10), neither appears on the current docket. The Clerk of the Court is therefore directed to add defendants Correctional Officer Dozer and Correctional Officer Nava to the docket in light of this order. 2 1
]]>
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.
