Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01648/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01648-4/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

ERIC JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. D. SHEPPARD-BROOKS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01648-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 11)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Eric Johnson (“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 July 19, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. To date,

plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:05-cv-01648-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 10/02/06 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 July 19, 2006, is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

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

December 30, 2005, against defendants Davis and Key for use of

excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

3. Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against any defendants

other than Davis and Key, and plaintiff’s due process, equal

protection, and conspiracy claims are DISMISSED from this action

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and,

4. Defendants Sheppard-Brooks, Ruiz, Martinez, and Wilson

are DISMISSED from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to

state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01648-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 2