Bulgara v. Cnty. of Stanislaus

Full title: JUAN S. BULGARA, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 13, 2018

No. 1:18-cv-00804-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2018)

Opinion

No. 1:18-cv-00804-DAD-SAB

11-13-2018

JUAN S. BULGARA, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 6)

Plaintiff Juan S. Bulgara, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the complaint in this civil rights action on June 13, 2018. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Upon screening plaintiff's first amended complaint, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on July 31, 2018, recommending dismissal of certain claims and defendants for failure to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 6.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service. No objections were filed and the time for doing so has expired.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this 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 by proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued July 31, 2018 (Doc. No. 6) are adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed against Doe 3 for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and assault and battery and negligence under California law; Does 1 and 2 for assault and negligence under California law; and the County of Stanislaus for vicarious liability on the state law claims;

3. All remaining claims are dismissed without leave to amend;

4. Defendants Modesto Police Department, Turlock Police Department, and Stanislaus County Sheriff's Office are dismissed from this action based on plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim against them; and

5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for initiation of service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13 , 2018

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE