Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00711/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00711-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

27

28 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENNIE RAY BROWN, No. 07-cv-00711 LJO TAG

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS

v. PLAINTIFF’S NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

(Doc. 16). 

ERIC LANTZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

On May 14, 2007, Plaintiff Bennie Ray Brown, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis,

filed a civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Bakersfield Police Officers Eric Lantz and

Steve Wilson in their individual capacities. (Doc. 1, 10). The matter was referred to the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-303.

On October 9, 2007, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and concluded that Plaintiff stated only two cognizable claims – a § 1983

claim alleging the deprivation of his Fourth Amendment rights and a pendent state law claim for 

false imprisonment. (Doc. 14). In accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s order, Plaintiff informed

the Court that he elected to proceed with these two cognizable claims instead of attempting to cure

the deficiencies in his non-cognizable § 1983 claims, in which he alleged violations of his Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Docs. 14, 15). 

On November 29, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to

dismiss the two non-cognizable claims in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 16). The Findings and

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that he had fifteen days from the

///

Case 1:07-cv-00711-LJO -TAG Document 17 Filed 01/07/08 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

27

28 2

date of service to objection to the Findings and Recommendations. (Id.). To date, no objections

have been filed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b), and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations

filed on November 29, 2007, are supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The November 29, 2007, Findings and Recommendations, (Doc. 16), are ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s civil rights claims alleging that his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments were violated are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

3. This action SHALL PROCEED as to Plaintiff’s allegations that the defendants deprived

him of his Fourth Amendment rights and subjected him to false imprisonment under state law; and 

4. This matter is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for the entry of appropriate orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00711-LJO -TAG Document 17 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 2