(PC) Davis v. Portillo et al, No. 1:2022cv00457 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 22 Findings and Recommendations to dismiss certain claims signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 6/30/2023. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER BRANDON DAVIS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. M. PORTILLO, et al., Case No.: 1:22-cv-00457-ADA-CDB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS (ECF No. 22) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Christopher Brandon Davis (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 April 25, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that this action proceed only on the following claims: (1) First Amendment 22 retaliation claims against Defendant Portillo (claims one & four) and Defendant Brown (claim 23 three); (2) an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Portillo (claim two); (3) 24 an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Molina (claim one); and (4) a due 25 process clause violation against Defendant Brown (claim three), as alleged in Plaintiff’s first 26 amended complaint. (ECF No. 22 at 2.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the 27 remaining claims be dismissed. (Id.) Plaintiff was afforded fourteen days within which to file 28 objections. (Id. at 2.) No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has now passed. 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 this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and 3 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 25, 2023, (ECF No. 22), are 6 ADOPTED in full; 7 2. The action SHALL proceed only on the following claims: (1) First Amendment 8 retaliation claims against Defendant Portillo (claims one & four) and Defendant Brown 9 (claim three); (2) an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant 10 Portillo (claim two); (3) an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against 11 Defendant Molina (claim one); and (4) a due process clause violation against Defendant 12 Brown (claim three); 13 3. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint are DISMISSED; and 14 4. This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 30, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.