Opinion
1:19-cv-01432-NE-GSA-PC
09-17-2021
ARBI KAMALI, Plaintiff, v. STEVENS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL
(Doc. No. 15.)
ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED ONLY WITH PLAINTIFF'S EXCESSIVE FORCE AND RETALIATION CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS ROSE STEVENS, IVAN VILLEGAS, JORDAN BRYAN, AND ALEN HERNANDEZ; AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(Doc. No. 13.)
Plaintiff, Arbi Kamali, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action under 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 July 26, 2021, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only with plaintiff's claims for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against defendants correctional officers Rose Stevens, Ivan Villegas, Jordan Bryan, and Alen Hernandez, but with no other claims against any of the defendants. (Doc. No. 15.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) The fourteen-day time period has expired, and plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations.
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, 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on July 26, 2021, (Doc. No. 15), are adopted in full;
2. This case now proceeds only with plaintiff s cognizable claims for retaliation and excessive force against defendants correctional officers Rose Stevens, Ivan Villegas, Jordan Bryan, and Alen Hernandez, but with no other claims against any of the defendants;
3. All other claims are dismissed from this action based on plaintiff s failure to state a claim;
4. Plaintiffs claims for violation of due process and invasion of bodily privacy are dismissed from this action based on plaintiffs failure to state a claim; and
5. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including initiation of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.