Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01118/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01118-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. HONNOLD, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISMISSAL 

OF CERTAIN OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 

AND DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 14)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 6.) The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On September 29, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and 

recommendations (ECF No. 14) that (1) Plaintiff should proceed on Eighth Amendment 

medical indifference claim against Defendant Honnold, and (2) all other claims asserted 

in the Complaint and all other named Defendants should be dismissed. After filing a 

notice with the Court agreeing to only proceed with his cognizable medical indifference 

claim against Defendant Honnold (ECF No. 13.), Plaintiff objected to the Findings and 

Case 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 12/04/15 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

Recommendations arguing that he had stated a cognizable retaliation claim against 

Defendant. (ECF No. 15.) The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to clarify his position. 

(ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff has indicated that he agrees to proceed with only the medical 

indifference claim against Defendant Honnold. (ECF No. 17.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 (ECF No. 14), filed on September 29, 

2015, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff is to proceed on the Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim

against Defendant Honnold; and

3. All other claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint and all other named 

Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01118-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 2