UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 11, 2012
HUCHINS, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF Nos. 173, 179)
Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed this action on March 11, 2009. 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 December 15, 2011, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and defendants from this action. The Court has considered Plaintiff's Objections, filed January 9, 2012.
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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 15, 2011, is adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on the second amended complaint, filed November 22, 2011 against:
a. Defendants Munoz, Clausing, and Omos for excessive force in pepper spraying Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
b. Defendants Hutchins, Reynoso, Hacker, and Roberson for ordering that Plaintiff's property be removed from his cell and that Plaintiff be placed back into the contaminated cell without a means to decontaminate from the pepper spray; and
c. Defendants Morse and Paz for placing Plaintiff in the contaminated cell;
3. Plaintiff's remaining Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim under section 1983;
4. Defendants Perez, Daley, Langler, and Henrichsen are dismissed, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim against them; and
5. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.