Opinion
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. 9)
ANTHONY W. ISHII, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is represented by counsel. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 31, 2011, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Fourteen days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. 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 HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge filed January 31, 2011, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's inadequate medical care claims against Defendants Gonzales and Gallegos regarding the denial of prescription medication are DISMISSED;
3. Plaintiff's equal protection claims against Defendants Widlund, Gonzales, Gallegos, Lopez, and Hernandez are DISMISSED;
4. Plaintiff's conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 against Defendants Widlund, Gonzales, Gallegos, and Lopez are DISMISSED;
5. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Yates, Fogal, and Shannon are DISMISSED;
6. This action shall proceed on the following claims: (1) excessive force under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Widlund, Gonzales, Gallegos, and Lopez; (2) inadequate medical care (prescription medication) under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Widlund and Hernandez; (3) inadequate medical care (post-altercation treatment) under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Widlund, Lopez, Gonzales, Gallegos, and Hernandez; and (4) retaliation under the First Amendment against Defendant Gonzales; and
7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue summons for Defendants Widlund, Gonzales, Gallegos, Lopez, and Hernandez.
IT IS SO ORDERED.