Watkins v. Greenwood

Full title: CASEY WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. CHAD GREENWOOD, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 12, 2016

Case No. 1:16-cv-00850-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. 1:16-cv-00850-LJO-SAB

12-12-2016

CASEY WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. CHAD GREENWOOD, et al., Defendants.

Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO INITIATE SERVICE OF PROCESS PROCEEDINGS (ECF Nos. 12, 13)

Plaintiff Casey Watkins is appearing 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 November 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a findings and recommendations (F&Rs) recommending dismissal of certain claims for failure to state a claim. The F&Rs were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service. On December 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Objections to Magistrate Judge's F & R".

In his "objection", Plaintiff states that he does not object to the F&Rs but requests that the court order service of process on the defendants and requests a copy of the Local Rules that would apply to this action.

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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed November 22, 2016, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action shall proceed against Defendants Greenwood and Sims in their individual capacities for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment;

3. All other claims are DISMISSED from the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and

4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process proceedings and address Plaintiff's request for a copy of the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12 , 2016

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE