Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03012/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03012-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-3012 JAM KJN P

vs.

J. HAVILAND, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 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 5, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

1

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 66 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 5, 2013, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant Easterling’s motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 54) is granted, and

plaintiff’s excessive force claim is dismissed without prejudice;

3. The motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 54) filed by defendants Bickham, Cappel,

Singh, and Haviland is granted, and plaintiff’s retaliation claims are dismissed with prejudice;

4. Defendant McGuire’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claims is denied;

and

5. Within fourteen days from service of this order, defendant Rosario is directed

to file an answer to plaintiff’s excessive force claims, and defendants Rosario, Garcia, and

McGuire are directed to file an answer to plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims. 

DATED: April 10, 2013

/s/ John A. Mendez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 66 Filed 04/11/13 Page 2 of 2