Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615-11/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAQUES FEARENCE, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

L. L. SHULTEIS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:08-cv-00615-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 45.)

ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO 

PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT ON CLAIMS 

FOUND COGNIZABLE BY THE COURT, 

AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS 

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Jacques Fearance (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 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 April 1, 2013, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that 

this action proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the court in the Second Amended 

Complaint, and that all other claims be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to 

state a claim. (Doc. 45.) On May 10, 2013, the parties were provided an opportunity to file 

objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. (Doc. 47.) To date, no 

objections have been filed.

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 48 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 2
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) 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 proper 

analysis. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 1, 

2013, are ADOPTED in full;

2. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed on 

March 25, 2013, against defendants Hopkins and Busby for use of excessive 

force; against defendants Hopkins, Davis, Duffy, and John Doe for failure to 

protect Plaintiff; and against defendants Hopkins, Busby, Davis, Duffy, and 

John Doe for conspiracy to use excessive force against Plaintiff, for damages 

only; 

3. All other claims are dismissed from this action;

4. Plaintiff’s claims for verbal harassment and injunctive relief are dismissed from 

this action; and

5. Defendants are required to file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint

within thirty days of the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 48 Filed 06/26/13 Page 2 of 2