Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02942/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02942-5/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL LENIOR SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2942 KJM AC P 

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 as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On January 4, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 

served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. F&Rs, ECF No. 26. Plaintiff has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 30. 

 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 reviewed the file, the court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:18-cv-02942-KJM-AC Document 35 Filed 03/26/21 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 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 4, 2021, ECF No. 26, are adopted in 

full. 

 2. Putative defendants Feltmer, Fackrell, Anaya, Spearman, Diaz, Shirly and Gire are 

terminated from this action without service. 

3. The Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Correctional Officers (“COs”) 

Suchoski, Binder, Martinez and Rose based on the August 14, 2016 incident; and against COs 

Monge, Tillery, Colby based on the January 18, 2018 incident shall proceed. Additionally, the 

Eighth Amendment failure-to protect claims against COs Cook and Stinson for delaying 

intervention on August 2018 when plaintiff was attacked by another inmate shall proceed. F&Rs 

at 7. 

4. All other putative claims are dismissed without leave to amend. 

5. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 23, is denied. 

6. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial 

proceedings. 

DATED: March 25, 2021. 

Case 2:18-cv-02942-KJM-AC Document 35 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 2