UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 24, 2009
BRANDON RACKLIFFE, PLAINTIFF,
C.O. ROCHA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS (Doc. 17)
Plaintiff Brandon Rackliffe ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 72-302.
On October 6, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed a timely Objection to the Findings and Recommendations on November 7, 2008.
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. In the objections, Plaintiff raises a number of addition claims for relief and provides further facts. Among the other things alleged in the objections, Plaintiff contends prison officials are retaliating against him for filing prison grievances, prison officials have placed him in an uninhabitable cell, prison officials have interfered with Plaintiff's court cases, and prison officials have ignored Plaintiff's medical needs. The court has reviewed the operative complaint in this action, filed on February 25, 2008. This complaint concerns solely Defendants' alleged excessive force on July 26, 2006. Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new claims in his objections. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no "buckshot" complaints); Fed.R.Civ.Pro.20(a)(2) (defendants may be joined in one action as defendants if any right to relief is asserted against them arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences); Fed.R.Civ.Pro.18(a) (allowing multiple claims against opposing party but not multiple unrelated claims against different defendants). Thus, the objections present no grounds to not adopt the Findings and Recommendations, and this action will proceed on those claims found cognizable by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 6, 2008, is adopted in full; and
2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff's complaint, filed February 25, 2008, against defendants Rocha and Medina for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
3. Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim;
4. Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim;
5. Plaintiff's equitable relief claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim;
6. Plaintiff's official capacity claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; and
7. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.