Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00764/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00764-8/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

CESARIO VIZCARRA MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-00764-ADA-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(ECF Nos. 1, 6, 9)

Plaintiff Cesario Medina is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this 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 October 17, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge entered findings and

recommendations recommending “all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3.” (ECF No. 9 at 2.) The 

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 

objections thereto must be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed objections 

and the time to do so has expired. 

///

///

///

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 23 Filed 06/01/23 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 304, the

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 proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 17, 2022 (ECF No. 9), are 

adopted in full;

2. All claims and Defendants are dismissed, except for Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1-3; and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of Defendants CDCR, 

Gipson, and Clark on the Court’s docket, and to add Defendants Doe ISU Officer 

1, Doe ISU Officer 2, and Doe ISU Officer 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 23 Filed 06/01/23 Page 2 of 2