Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01429-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
P. Actas
Defendant
Jim Cage
Plaintiff
E. Cortez
Defendant
A. Encinas
Defendant
A. Johnson
Defendant
R. Rogue
Defendant
J. Rojas
Defendant
J. Ward
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

JIM CAGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-1429 JLT CDB (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS, 

AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 

COURT TO UPDATE THE DOCKET 

(Doc. 13) 

Jim Cage seeks to hold the defendants liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened the allegations of the complaint pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive 

force claim against Defendant Rojas. (Doc. 10.) However, the magistrate judge also found 

Plaintiff failed to state any other cognizable claim against any other named defendant. (Id. at 5-8.) 

In response to the Screening Order, Plaintiff filed notice that he did not wish to file an amended 

complaint and was willing to proceed only on the claim found cognizable. (Doc. 11 at 5.) 

The magistrate judge recommended this action proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claim against Defendant J. Rojas. (Doc. 13 at 2.) The magistrate judge also 

recommended the remaining claims and defendants be dismissed. (Id.) The Findings and 

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff on the same date, and contained a notice that any 

objections were due within 14 days of the date of service. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff was also advised that 

Case 1:22-cv-01429-CDB Document 14 Filed 08/25/23 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

the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal.” 

(Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has expired. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 4, 2023 (Doc. 13) are 

ADOPTED in full. 

2. This action PROCEEDS only on the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 

against Defendant J. Rojas. 

3. All other claims in Plaintiff’s complaint are DISMISSED. 

4. Defendants A. Johnson, E. Cortez, R. Rogue, A. Encinas, J. Ward and P. Actas are 

DISMISSED from this action.

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket.

6. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2023 

Case 1:22-cv-01429-CDB Document 14 Filed 08/25/23 Page 2 of 2