(PC) DeLeon v. Phillips

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VINCENT DELEON, No. 1:24-cv-00234-KES-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 11 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS AND TO PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF’S BRYAN PHILLIPS, et al., EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM 13 Defendants. (Doc. 13) 16 Vincent DeLeon proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (FAC) alleges correctional officers at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (CSATF) used excessive force against him. Doc. 11. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21 Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on February 26, 2024. Doc. 1. On April 19, 2024, the Court screened plaintiff’s complaint and found that, “[w]hile the allegations in the complaint appear to state an incident of excessive force, it is not clear from the complaint who used force against him. Plaintiff lists several officers and the Warden of CSATF as defendants, but does not describe what any of them did in his description of the event.” Doc. 10. Plaintiff was given leave to amend his complaint, id., and he filed the FAC on May 10, 2024, Doc. 11.

1 The assigned magistrate judge screened the FAC and entered findings and | recommendations on May 21, 2024, finding that plaintiff stated a cognizable excessive force | claim against defendant Steven Santiago. Doc. 13. The magistrate judge also recommended that | all other claims and defendants be dismissed without further leave to amend. /d. at 7.

5 The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and notified him that any | objections were to be filed within thirty days after service. Jd. at 7. The findings and || recommendations advised plaintiff that “failure to file objections within the specified time may | result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” Jd. at 8 (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)). No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has passed.

10 || See docket.

11 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of | this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes the findings and | recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

14 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 21, 2024, Doc. 13, are ADOPTED 16 IN FULL; 17 2. This case shall PROCEED on plaintiffs claim of excessive force against defendant 18 Steven Santiago, a correctional officer at CSATF; 19 3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon 20 which relief may be granted; 21 4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for proceedings consistent 22 with this order.

95 | IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 26 Dated: _ October 11, 2024 4h 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE