Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00598/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00598-2/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

MARK A. SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. CASTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-00598-DAD-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. No. 18)

Plaintiff Mark A. Scott 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 August 9, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 

found that plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim against defendant Castillo 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 claim. (Doc. No. 15 at 5–6, 10.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a 

first 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 10–11.) On August 30, 2021, 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. 16.)

Case 1:20-cv-00598-KES-GSA Document 19 Filed 11/16/21 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

Accordingly, on September 24, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this case proceed only on those claims found to be 

cognizable in the screening order. (Doc. No. 18.) The magistrate judge also recommended that 

all other claims brought, and all other defendants named, by plaintiff in his 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. at 2–3.) 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 September 24, 2021 (Doc. No. 18) 

are adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claim for use of excessive force against 

defendant Castillo;

3. All other claims and named defendants are dismissed; and

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

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2021 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00598-KES-GSA Document 19 Filed 11/16/21 Page 2 of 2