Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00342/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00342-8/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELROY W. BROWNING,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00342-AWI-LJO-P 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDING AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Elroy W. Browning (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 72-302.

On September 2, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and

which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. To date, plaintiff has not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 21 Filed 11/10/05 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 2,

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s complaint,

filed March 11, 2005, only against defendants Castro, Jackson,

and Lopez on plaintiff’s excessive force claim;

3. Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim, due process claims, equal

protection claim, claims based on violation of the California

Penal Code, and supervisory liability claims are DISMISSED,

without prejudice, for failure to state any claims upon which

relief may be granted; and,

4. Defendants Woodford, Scribner, Sheppard-Brooks, and

Grandy are DISMISSED based on plaintiff’s failure to state any

claims upon which relief may be granted against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 21 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 2