From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. Hildebrand

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 30, 2018
No. 1:17-cv-01397-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018)

Opinion

No. 1:17-cv-01397-LJO-SAB (PC)

04-30-2018

ISRAEL HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. M. HILDEBRAND, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. No. 13)

Plaintiff Israel Howard is a prisoner proceeding 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 April 4, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only on Plaintiff's claim for (1) excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Sergeants Hildebrand and Garza; (2) deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Sergeants Hildebrand and Garza, and Officer Marquez; (3) Eighth Amendment unconstitutional conditions of confinement against Sergeant Hildebrand and Officer Marquez; and (4) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Sergeant Hildebrand. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen days. (Id.) That deadline has passed, and no objections were filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, 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 proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 4, 2018 (Doc. No. 13) are adopted in full;

2. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's claim for (1) excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Sergeants Hildebrand and Garza; (2) deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Sergeants Hildebrand and Garza, and Officer Marquez; (3) Eighth Amendment unconstitutional conditions of confinement against Sergeant Hildebrand and Officer Marquez; and (4) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Sergeant Hildebrand;

3. All remaining claims and defendants are dismissed from this action; and

4. This case is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30 , 2018

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Howard v. Hildebrand

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 30, 2018
No. 1:17-cv-01397-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018)
Case details for

Howard v. Hildebrand

Case Details

Full title:ISRAEL HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. M. HILDEBRAND, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Apr 30, 2018

Citations

No. 1:17-cv-01397-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018)