Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01649-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON JAQUAY HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTIAN LEPE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01649-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

ECF No. 15

Plaintiff Brandon Jaquay Holmes (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil

rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 

403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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 August 15, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations, 

recommending dismissal of certain of Plaintiff’s claims and defendants. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff 

has not filed any objections. 

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. 

Case 1:12-cv-01649-AWI-MJS Document 16 Filed 09/12/13 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

27

28

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 15, 2013, are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s action proceed on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against 

Defendant Lepe; 

3. Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim for seizure of property is DISMISSED with 

prejudice; 

4. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against unnamed individuals for not allowing 

him to properly decontaminate after he was sprayed with pepper spray is

DISMISSED with prejudice;

5. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim is DISMISSED with prejudice; 

6. Plaintiff’s claims under the Code of Federal Regulations is DISMISSED with

prejudice; and

7. Defendant Rios is DISMISSED from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2013 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

0m8i788

Case 1:12-cv-01649-AWI-MJS Document 16 Filed 09/12/13 Page 2 of 2