Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01581/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01581-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandon Cope
Defendant
Crounse
Defendant
Borjas Gonzales
Defendant
Mario Lozano
Defendant
Oussama Sahibi
Plaintiff
Howard Smith
Defendant
Stan
Defendant

Document Text:

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

OUSSAMA SAHIBI,

Plaintiff,

v.

BORJAS GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01581-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 

ON THE PLEADINGS

(ECF No. 48)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(ECF No. 31)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Brandon Cope, Borjas 

Gonzales, Mario Lozano, Howard Smith, and Stan, and on a Fourteenth Amendment 

due process claim against Defendant Crounse. The matter was referred to a United 

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

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

On September 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and 

Case 1:15-cv-01581-LJO-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/24/16 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 

recommendations to deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings brought by 

Defendants Gonzales, Lozano, Smith, Stan, and Cope. (ECF No. 48.) No objections 

were filed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by 

proper analysis. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Court adopts in full the findings and recommendations filed September 

20, 2016 (ECF No. 48); and 

2. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 31) is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 24, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-01581-LJO-JLT Document 55 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 2