Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01275/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01275-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EDWARD WALLACE,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEMOORE PD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01275-DAD-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT 

LEMOORE PD

(Doc. No. 10)

Plaintiff James Edward Wallace is a pretrial detainee in local custody 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 November 11, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint (“FAC”) and found that plaintiff has stated cognizable claims against defendant Acosta 

for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and for 

failure to provide objectively reasonable medical care in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but 

that plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable claims against defendant Lemoore Police 

Department. (Doc. No. 10 at 2, 8.) Rather than provide plaintiff an opportunity to file a further 

amended complaint, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending 

that this case proceed only on plaintiff’s claims for use of excessive force and medical-needs 

Case 1:21-cv-01275-KES-EPG Document 11 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 3
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

against defendant Acosta and that all claims brought by plaintiff against defendant Lemoore 

Police Department be dismissed without further leave to amend. (Id. at 8.) In so recommending, 

the magistrate judge noted that “[t]he Court previously explained to Plaintiff the deficiencies in 

his initial complaint, provided Plaintiff with relevant legal standards, and provided Plaintiff an 

opportunity to amend his complaint,” and given that “[p]laintiff filed his first amended complaint 

with the benefit of the information provided by the Court, it appears that further leave to amend 

would be futile.” (Id.)

The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 

that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) 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 November 11, 2021 (Doc. No. 10) 

are adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s claims brought against defendant 

Acosta for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for 

failure to provide objectively reasonable medical care in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment;

3. All claims brought by plaintiff against defendant Lemoore Police Department are 

dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted; 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:21-cv-01275-KES-EPG Document 11 Filed 01/12/22 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate defendant Lemoore Police 

Department as a named defendant in this action; and

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

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01275-KES-EPG Document 11 Filed 01/12/22 Page 3 of 3