Opinion
1:19-cv-00666-DAD-GSA (PC)
06-24-2021
DAVID BRANDON RAMSEY, Plaintiff, v. A. DICKERSON, et. al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. NO. 21)
Plaintiff David Brandon Ramsey is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 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 February 9, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint and issued an order directing plaintiff to either file a second amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order within thirty (30) days after service of that order. (Doc. No. 16 at 12.) After requesting and receiving an extension of time, on April 2, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice stating he wished to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order. (Doc. No. 20.)
Thus on April 9, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action proceed only on plaintiff's claims against defendants Sergeant A. Jimenez and Correctional Officers A. Dickerson, S. Borlina, and J. Santiago for use of excessive force and that all other claims and defendants from this case be dismissed due to plaintiffs failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 21 at 2.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2-3.) To date no objections have been filed, and the time to do so has now passed.
The pending findings and recommendations mistakenly state that plaintiffs claim for denial of medical care in violation of the Eight Amendment may also proceed (Doc. No. 21 at 2); however, the screening order found that plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim that defendants had denied him constitutionally adequate medical care. (Doc. No. 16 at 9, 12). Accordingly, that claim is dismissed by this order.
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 proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 21) are adopted;
2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff s claims against defendants Sergeant A. Jimenez and Correctional Officers A. Dickerson, S. Borlina, and J. Santiago for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this case due to plaintiff s failure to state a claim; and
4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.