Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461-6/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

ADAM JAY STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFIEFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01461-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. No. 28)

Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On March 23, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint and found that he had stated a cognizable claim against defendants B. Gonzales, G. 

Morales, K. Gonzales, and Anderson for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but that plaintiff had failed to state any other cognizable 

claims against those defendants. (Doc. No. 26 at 6–7.) The magistrate judge also found that 

plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable claims against named defendants C. Pfeiffer and B. 

Kirby. (Id.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint in an attempt to cure 

the cited deficiencies or to notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claim found 

to be cognizable in the screening order within thirty (30) days of service of that order. (Id. at 7–

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 29 Filed 05/02/22 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

8.) On April 4, 2022, plaintiff notified the court that he was willing to proceed only on the claim 

identified by the magistrate judge in the screening order as cognizable. (Doc. No. 27.)

Accordingly, on April 6, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that this case proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable in the screening 

order. (Doc. No. 28.) The magistrate judge also recommended that all other claims brought, and 

all other defendants named, by plaintiff in his first amended complaint be dismissed from this 

action. (Id. at 2.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) 

No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 6, 2022 (Doc. No. 28) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claim against defendants B. Gonzales, G. 

Morales, K. Gonzales, and Anderson for use of excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution;

3. All other claims and named defendants are dismissed; 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendants C. 

Pfeiffer and B. Kirby have been terminated as named defendants in this action; and

5. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 29 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 2