Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00803/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00803-7/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

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

1:10-cv-0803-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART AND

DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND

DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 20)

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 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 302.

On May 25, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations,

recommending dismissal of certain of Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff

has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations, in which he requests that the Court

dismiss Defendants Cate and Kern County from this action without prejudice. (ECF No. 21.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule 305, this

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. After reviewing Plaintiff’s objections, the

Court finds that they have merit and will dismiss these claims and Defendants without prejudice. 

 At this time, the court will not prohibit Plaintiff from the possibility of amending the complaint

if future discovery links other Defendants to the causes of action.

///

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-00803-AWI-MJS Document 23 Filed 08/21/12 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 25, 2012, are adopted in part;

2. Plaintiff may proceed on his Eighth Amendment and negligence claims against

Defendant Harrington;

3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Cate and Kern County are dismissed without

prejudice; and

4. Defendants Cate and Kern Countyare dismissed from this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 20, 2012 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

-2-

Case 1:10-cv-00803-AWI-MJS Document 23 Filed 08/21/12 Page 2 of 2